Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston could get off the grid a bit; could save money, reduce emissions and better survive regional power problems
By adamg on Mon, 02/15/2016 - 9:59am
Potential areas for community solar electric systems in Boston.
MIT researchers say Boston could become more energy self sufficient and become a greener city by working towards a series of neighborhood power sources that would include small natural-gas power plants and "community" solar systems.
In a study conducted with both the city of Boston and Eversource, the researchers from MIT's Sustainable Design Lab and Lincoln Laboratory pointed to the Longwood Medical Area's MATEP power plant and Veolia's existing steam network in Boston Proper as examples of smaller systems that could light up and heat the city's denser neighborhoods housing projects and commercial areas. They found 42 districts where microgrids might make sense.
And in outer areas, Boston has plenty of buildings with flat roofs that could be fitted with solar panels to reduce the city's reliance on fossil fuels and the regional power grid.
To figure out where these systems might make sense, the researchers took BRA data on the size, height and shape of every building in the city, then estimated how much energy they might use and when. They found 42 districts where microgrids might make sense.
The City of Boston, working in partnership with our utility providers Eversource, National Grid, and Veolia will use these findings to begin the transformation of our energy systems in the City. This partnership approach to energy system planning responds to the needs of Boston businesses and residents for clean, affordable and resilient power systems. Boston’s thriving innovation and knowledge economy and booming urban growth are an ideal platform for innovations in the energy system.
Note: The solar-potential map is based on data from Google Maps, which for some reason did not include West Roxbury, Hyde Park, Roslindale or Mattapan.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
This is cool, but I don't
This is cool, but I don't understand why natural gas is still being presented as a more environmentally friendly alternative to other fossil fuels. While it's true that it burns much cleaner than oil or coal, the problem with natural gas is in its extraction and transportation. These processes are notorious for leaking tons of methane (just look at what happened in LA recently or all of the fracking related problems around the country). Once methane gets into the atmosphere it traps about 100 times more heat than CO2. Natural gas is not the answer.
Here we go again…
Fracking is in the picture because it needs to be. 100% renewable sources don't have the output that modern society requires yet, and likely won't for many years. Additionally, trying to power everything that way is incredibly expensive (and the prices solar is at now are only because of extreme subsidies by the Chinese government, which as an industry has popped a bit lately) Fracking is an effective bridge tool, and the leakages are unfairly maligned by the left always eager to let the perfect be the enemy of the much, much better.: http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/fracking-gas-leaks-no-worse-than-...
All energy extraction is a risk, including solar and wind which often end up vaporizing/slicing wildlife in the area as well. It comes down to how you manage it. The US wouldn't have cut/stabilized its greenhouse gas emissions without the Natural Gas boom, and places like Europe are foolishly firing up more coal plants post-fracking bans because of the instability renewables have brought to the current energy systems: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-prov...
In summary, it's time to review your talking points because they're doing everyone a disservice. Getting off coal and crude oil and onto natural gas is a huge improvement, one that will eventually lead to the fully renewable future we all want.
Well, unless we'd pull our heads out of our asses and started working on new nuclear plants, which blow every other current form out of the water in regards to output and overall cleanliness (and we're even reaching the point where previously spent nuclear material is recyclable into even further fuel with newer reactors). Ironically, nuclear deployment is also a victim of cheaper natural gas, but also not an argument about an overall balanced and realistic energy policy which seems to elude most people talking about "clean energy" in politics.
That ARS Technica article
That ARS Technica article states that leakage is a problem common to all methods of natural gas extraction. Are you simply trying to defend fracking or natural gas on the whole? Their comparison between fracking wells and conventional wells also doesn't hold much water, since the fracking wells they studied were only 2.5 years old on average where the conventional wells were "considerably older." That is a HUGE confounding factor.
Here is a much larger study that shows the exact opposite of what that ARS Technica article proclaims:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/39/14076.full
jeff f--
While many of your points are good-- we do need to use natural gas right now-- that does not mean that we shouldn't be pursuing the ways of getting it that do not involve fracking. If the companies doing it feel "unfairly maligned," then they can solve that problem by complying with EPA requests for their chemical fracturing formulas. Instead, they have claimed that the need to protect proprietary formulas inhibits their ability to reveal this information to a federal agency, and are dawdling through the hearings/appeal process. This is nonsense; proprietary information held by private corporations is protected under EO 13526 as well as a host of other laws. If proprietary information were not protected, then businesses like Raytheon and Dupont would never be able to fulfill government contracts.
Because it is?
https://www.edf.org/climate/natural-gas
I don't understand your dismal of the fact that it burns much cleaner than oil or coal like that's not exactly why it's more environmentally friendly.
It's a better fuel until we develop the next generation of post fossil fuel energy technology. But whatever that is is still years away. And we should use as little as possible.
I think you missed the point
I think you missed the point of my post. I'm saying that the problem with natural gas is not in its use, but in fracking and transportation. If we're strictly talking about burning natural gas, then yes it's much more environmentally friendly than oil or coal. But fracking and transporting methane are extremely bad for the environment and that part of the equation can't be ignored. Natural gas is not a greener alternative to oil or coal.
No, I just disagree
As that EDF link lays out, gas is better than oil or coal. It's not great, just better. So as we hope to transition away from fossil fuels, it's the best carbon fuel option, especially when used in concert to use less of it through efficiency, leakage prevention, etc...
The only truly green option would be to not live in New England in the winter but that's not really on the table, so we're always looking at lesser evil type options here.
Fair enough
Fair enough. I'm not sure how much trust I can put into the EDF on this matter, given their ties to fossil fuel companies, but I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.
The EDF is usually reliable
They work with companies because their goal is large-scale changes throughout the supply chain. They are clear about their boundaries and will walk if they feel that they are being used.
That's why they tend to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
I have worked with them before and I had my doubts, but they don't capitulate like a consulting firm will.
Wrong Goal
The Goal shouldn't be to upgrade from the worst, dirtiest, most destructive way to create power to a method that is incrementally less terrible. It should be to move wholesale into an infrastructure that seeks to be restorative to an already severely compromised environment. It's like if a doctor said "Cake is killing you...you should try vegetables" and you said "oh ok well I'll just eat cookies until they make vegetables that taste like cake".
This isn't just a power generation conversation either. In the matter of a couple decades we completely transformed the design of american life and changed the infrastructure nationwide to one that is built for the automobile. We redesigned buildings, cities, towns, interstate travel, pipelines and other core infrastructure at immense cost to American public in order to accommodate cars and trucks. This was returned to us in economic activity and increased commerce, but was to the detriment of the environment. Now we have a chance to invest the same kind of resources again to bring restoration, resiliency, and energy independence to the country. The car was a home run piece of technology that catalyzed the massive investment. There are lots of good technologies out there that tackle our systemic problems, I hope one (or maybe a host of them) gets adopted to the level of the car in order to spur the same sort of initiative
There really is no answer
that doesn't involve nuclear power.
Or, you know, turning the thermostat down to 33 in the winter and generally going back to living in the treetops.
Also, microgrids are silly because a few big giant power plants are more generally more efficient than a lot of smaller ones in terms of cost to build, maintain, and often in terms of losses in the energy conversion process depending on what's being burned or even in terms of solar power. Big solar plants can recover waste heat from the back side of the panels. With small installations, it's just as costly for all the plumbing in the back but with much less payoff.
Where it's not silly is if you're actually going for redundancy or self-sufficiency over energy conversion efficiency, but as well all know, nothing is free.
In the meantime shop around for a more Competitive Supplier...
In the meantime shop around for a more Competitive Supplier at
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/electric-power/elect...
The "microgrid" part isn't really necessary
With perhaps the areas adjacent to BOS or to the Soldier's Field Athletic Area (where there wouldn't be a massive install anyway), there's no need to "microgrid." Just plug directly into the distribution grid -- it can handle it. Rather than build the necessary storage to allow a microgrid, simply let the surplus energy flow into the local distribution grid, where it will flow to the building next door.
Much less expensive, but then it wouldn't have that buzzword "microgrid" in it. And yes, installing more PV in Boston is a fabulous idea, starting with the roof of the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center.
Anyone remember
the winter of '10-'11?
All them roof collapses on large warehouses and the like exacerbated by the fact that when there's a PV installation on top, it's much more labor-intensive to clear the snow off.
Nothing is free.
PV at ground level on empty fields? Sure. Why not?
PV on pedastals like in the top deck of the Alewife or Logan garages? Sure. Why not (assuming the building structure can handle a pedestal big enough to withstand wind and snow loads on the panels).
PV on large flat roofs? No more please.
Do you have any examples of
Do you have any examples of roofs with solar panels that collapsed?
Google
Has examples of roofs with solar panels being harder to clear of snow.
That's not what the
That's not what the challenger asked for though. Your original statement was FLAT roofs with panels collapsing. Still waiting for the evidence - not holding my breath.
And yet the new power
And yet the new power substation on Electric Avenue in Brighton has a 45 degree pitched roof facing northish toward the turnpike. While that may send rain back away from the substation grounds, having the roof slanted the opposite way would be a no-brainer for solar panels and become an ideal spot for micro-grid. I would feel much better about that substation since I live on Parsons St and can see the damn thing from my house.
very impressed...
the way these kids disregarded Rozzie, Mattapan, West Rox and HP: did we just get re-annexed by Dedham or something?
Election losses matter
Connolly lost, Walsh won and now we're a backwater.
Not quite
Hyde Park, Mattapan, and parts of Roslindale were Walsh country, while JP went for Connolly.
The reality is that as far as these people go, southern Boston has always been a backwater.
Well sure
if you want to bring facts into the discussion, I suppose you're right.
Don't blame MIT
Blame Google. MIT used this cool mapping thing Google came out with a few months ago showing the solar potential of roofs in the Boston area to build their map. It was Google that left off the southern third of the city.