51°
GRAFTON, Mass - Will Grafton go green? Town Administrator Timothy P. McInerney is planning on it.
If all goes well, town-owned properties could see a big savings in their annual electric bill thanks to two solar farms that are in the planning stages. McInerney said that by next July, the town could begin seeing solar power credits shaving $130,000 off their National Grid bill — and reducing the town’s overhead.
The first farm would be built on town property at the Follette Street Water District site, the second would be built on Northbridge property at the South Grafton line. Permits have been pulled from building inspectors in both towns and McInerney said the target date to be online is next July.
Follette Street is expected to generate two megawatts of power, half of which will be bought by the town through credits. One megawatt is equal to 1 million watts of power, enough to power, conservatively, 200 homes or more depending on the number of sunny days in a year.
National Grid would buy the solar power and, in turn, the town would pay a reduced price for electricity based on the credit from the utility company. The town would split the credit with the water district, keeping 80 percent. McInerney said the savings would be about $75,000 a year. If the plan to buy electricity from Northbridge happens, that would bring another $55,000 savings.
“The goal is to become more self-sustaining,” McInerney said. “By saving on electricity, it reduces our budget.”
McInerney said solar panels could also be installed on the roofs of schools and the municipal center if the town can get grant money to fund the projects. “There are structural issues to consider,” he said about some of the older buildings. But if grant money could be found, each building could save 25 percent of their electric bill.
Comments (16)
We should wait and see if Romney wins. If he does, then oil, gas, natural gas, electricity are all going to go down in cost and that will make this type of investment less beneficial.
This story only writes about revenue, and does not include costs. I think costs matter!
The water district (me,us) owns' this land and they are going to sublet it to the town for less then the taxes that would have to be paid on the property, if it was private property.
Within this equation, it all sounds good, but in the end, it's all on my tax bill, from water, town, State, and Feds.
Once again your facts are wrong - the land at Follette Street is town own land that is leased to the Water District - all of this was covered when the Board of Selectmen negotiated a new lease with the Water District. Here is the story http://grafton.dailyvoice.com/news/grafton-water-district-offering-solar-power-soon
For such a fiscal hawk, I would think you would know the basic details
@ mikescully Kudos for all of the info. Clearly you did your homework. But how does a wind turbine not work at night?
Cant remember exactly where I read that they get shut off at night but also, I have yet to actually see one in motion at night. Maybe it is specific areas due to noise etc.
As far as I can find, the only reasons to turn off wind turbines at night are that they can kill bats due to local changes in air pressure, they raise the local temperature a couple degrees C due to mixing cold and warm air, and they can be noisy.
I am going to guess solar panels don't work at night either.
Could the town re-use some of its old existing mill races to generate hydroelectric power that could be sold to the grid or used by the town?
The Alternatives organization in Northbridge has adapted an old mill to help generate electricity for their buildings., I think...
Going green can be both positive and negative. Not all green projects are created equal or are actually beneficial to the towns that move in that direction.
First off, the article claims $155,000 in savings but then goes on to breakdown two "maybe" numbers of $75,000 in potential savings from the Follette Street site and $55,000 from a site to be built in Northbridge of which we do not have a direct right or access to the power / savings. $75,000 + $55,000 is not $155,000. Plus, both of these numbers are estimates only and on the basis that these two projects actually come online in time to capture the federal tax credits that make them viable. What happens if the fields miss the boat and come online too late to earn the credits, will the developers abandon ship, leaving our potential savings to go down with the ship?
I applaud the move to save the town's operating budget if in fact that is what happens, but to install a whole bunch of solar panels just to use the very shaky numbers to fund a capital project seems risky. Will the savings be there for the full term of the bond needed to pay for the capital project? Can we guarantee those savings will ever materialize or even last that long? Too many questions, not enough certainty. Just because we can buy a guarantee (aka insurance) doesn't mean that we are getting full guaranteed savings for the entire term of a possible 15 year bond?
The federal government with 16 trillion dollar deficits should not be using our tax dollars to spend on subsidies for any non financially feasible project, like solar etc. Subsidies are basically theft from the taxpayer and bribes to cities and towns to fall in line with an agenda that doesn't necessarily benefit the town.
I agree, taking / using land for solar panels instead of unproductive roof space is a waste of beautiful preserved open space.
@EL Harvey - Wind turbines are not very effective. They cant run during heavy winds, cant run at night, often break down and are not running while waiting for super expensive parts, they look ugly and they kill birds. The costs of repairs are crazy expensive. The costs outweigh the benefits. Solar is definitely a better option, but the costs have to be weighed.
Overall, the chance to save the town money through solar "could" be a good thing, but it is like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I'll believe it when I see that there is actually a rainbow with a real pot of gold ($75,000) at the end that magically reappears every year for 15 years to pay for the municipal center upgrades and repairs.
I'm fully in favor of passive alternative energy, except that current technology fails to provide the product, electricity, at a competitive price to the user. Because of that shortcoming, our government has established subsidies (out of our tax dollars) to get these businesses started. And you saw what happened to Solyndra - - and that has been happening elsewhere.
When the subsidies stop, the proponent may find his position financially negative and simply abandon the project, leaving Northbridge (and perhaps Grafton with a huge clean-up bill. Protective measures are needed, such as a permanent bond, to cover our potential loss. Let's be safe here!
Thank you everyone on your thoughts about alternative energy.
So what's the cost? Payback period?
How about a wind turbine instead of solar??? There are several hills in town and from what I've read, they generate more electricity than solar. Plus they work 24 hours a day, not just in daylight...
Yeah, but good luck getting past NIMBYs.
I have to say I agree with StevieP65. It's not "going green" if we're taking away green to get there. Better to put solar panels on top of existing structures than in open fields, isn't it?
I'm struck by the beautiful view in the picture of the meadow above, and equally apalled at the thought of filling it in with solar panels. What a waste of open space.