Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blacklassie t1_izeh7yv wrote

NIMBYism aside, cutting down a bunch of trees to install solar doesn’t make much sense to me.

154

dpm25 t1_izei94k wrote

Using land for solar, instead of housing, around the 128 belt is bananas.

95

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.

12

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.

1

person749 t1_izmx0ph wrote

> let Boston take all the burdens.

Damn, what a callous way to talk about poor people.

0

kyoto93 t1_izezlkv wrote

Here is a crazy idea, what if we put the solar panels on top of the houses/residential developments 🤯

12

Mnemon-TORreport t1_izfim4w wrote

Think of all the parking lots you could put a roof on with solar panels instead ...

5

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

1

Bobbydadude01 t1_izf18se wrote

Why

3

TheSukis t1_izfomy3 wrote

Because there are large amounts of treeless land where solar panels can be put without needing to further damage ecosystems.

3

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.

0

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.

2

[deleted] t1_izfio0q wrote

[deleted]

9

person749 t1_izmx670 wrote

It's nice to hear somebody else actually think of the local wildlife.

1

[deleted] t1_izfl4ic wrote

[deleted]

−2

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.

5

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.

2

wgc123 t1_izg4exr wrote

And right up next to the highway, so there really not much nature to harm, nor residents to impact

1

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.

0

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.

0

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.

−2

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.

−9