Hi Dennis, Fracking seems a bit backwards but I love the idea of fission. Won’t it be great to have a clean fission reactors that supply all the energy we want! We should get ready by switching our homes to all electric now! This is a short 3 min video from the cleanheatlexington.org website by Saul Griffith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg-p4ZbQ1HU&t=194s about electrifying our homes. Belinda
> On Mar 16, 2022, at 3:23 AM, Dennis Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, an opening! 😊 😊 😊 Belinda wrote: >” What would you do to solve the > climate crisis?” [CAUTION: long and pedantic!] > > First, if I may be permitted to introduce this concept: “The politician's > syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, > is a logical fallacy of the form: > > We must do something. > This is something. > Therefore, we must do this. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism> > > Now, as applied to politicians, this fallacy takes the form of politicians > passing all sorts of bills to demonstrate to their voters/supporters that, > why, yes, of course, this is a very big problem, and here’s proof that I > CARE, and I am DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. > > I can name all too many such situations. But I am sure that you can too! > Think back to things that capture the national attention, and then think > about the response and bills from politicians passed in the immediate wake > that turn out to be . . . not particularly helpful/useful, yet live on, like > ghosts of bad laws past. > > I bring this up because this syllogism applies to individuals too – to all of > us. And for understandable reasons!!! We have empathy, we care, we want to > strive to find solutions. That’s laudable! What we should NOT do, though, > is to let our DESIRE for an answer mean that we take Action X, Y, and Z, > simply because they are ACTIONS. > > Here’s a quick example. Many folks see the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine, and > want to help. Understandable, and laudable! So, in the interest of taking > action, of doing SOMETHING, they . . . donated canned food and medical > supplies and clothing and blankets. Hey, it’s a GREAT urge. But . . . > shipping this heavy stuff across the Atlantic is . . . insane. This is why > humans invented cash! And wire transfers! And credit cards! And Venmo! If > you want to take action to support Ukraine and their heroic defense, and help > the millions of refugees, in the most efficient way possible, donate money. > There are many wonderful charities that will take that money donation and buy > the needed goods in Eastern Europe, right where the goods are . . . needed. > > Climate change, by definition, is a global problem. The only way to solve > problems of this type is to look forward, and see what can actually be > accomplished within the realms of reality. What actions can be taken that > will actually have a practical impact? > > Anything in our little town of 7k folks will have, I guarantee you, ZERO > practical effect on climate change. Completely and utterly immeasurable. > The best possible argument I could come up with is this – “why, if we take a > stand, this will virtue signal to other municipalities to do the same, and if > we all pull together, then we can get every town to do the same!” Except, of > course, with climate change, if every single town in the US adopted a > regulation that banned the installation of fossil fuel for heating in new > buildings, it would still have something approaching ZERO impact on most > estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. And that’s the best case scenario! > > I am almost reluctant to say this – but the big takeaway of the Politician’s > Syllogism is that, sometimes, there is ***NOTHING*** that a given > politician/municipality/region/country can do about a particular problem. > > The corollary to that is: make sure that any virtue signaling attempts at a > solution you implement doesn’t actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. > > Now, to answer specifically Belinda’s question… what would DENNIS do about > climate change? MANY OF YOU ALL WILL HATE THIS, but . . . > > Fracking!!! Fracking!!! And more FRACKING!!! <insert evil cackle of greedy > capitalist here, if you must> WHY? Because Fracking enables the generation > of yet more natural gas. “WHAAAA?? That’s just crazy talk!” NOPE. > Switching from petroleum and coal to natural gas REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS > EMISSIONS (and has other environmental benefits)! Heck, the US has recorded > reductions in greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, with the biggest > contributing factor being the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity > generation. Producing more natural gas – and shipping it more efficiently > via pipelines and LNG carriers – will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, > PERIOD. Yet many folks who claim to be environmentalists and green and > super-concerned about climate change refuse to acknowledge this reality, > simply because they can’t stand the idea of more fracking. For me, reality > wins. > > Nuclear!!! Nuclear!!! And more nuclear!!! <insert images of Hiroshima and > Chernobyl and Fukushima here, if you must> Why? Because nuclear is the > single best GREEN WAY to generate power! Nuclear fission is awesome! It has > zero carbon emissions! Nuclear power worldwide has killed less than > 0.000001% of the number of people killed by coal and oil and gas! AND > hydroelectric!!! Ah, what about safety! Nuclear is super safe! Fukushima, > a reactor of an OLD design, survived not only a massive earthquake, but a > historically huge tsunami, without killing anyone from acute radiation > poisoning! The WHO estimates that there will be no discernable increase in > cancer death rates! And *modern* nuclear reactor designs are much safer – > think about how safe a car or plane designed today is, compared to one > designed in 1954 or 1969. I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line > is – nuclear power is super safe, super efficient, and is the single best way > to reduce greenhouse case emissions. > > Nuclear!!! Nuclear!!! And more nuclear!!! And here I mean nuclear fusion. > Which is very, very different from nuclear fission. It’s literally > impossible to have a nuclear accident; there’s no long-term waste; and you > can’t turn a fusion plant into a weapon (well, I guess you could maybe knock > it over onto someone?). Yes, there’s the hoary saying: “Fusion is the power > of the future, just ten years away, and it’s been that way for the last forty > years.” I’ll grant you that. But there are a lot of VC backed fusion > start-ups now, including ones backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Do you > think that greedy capitalist billionaires and VCs are wasting their money if > they don’t think that these companies offer a realistic return within the > next 5-10 years? I am 100% confident that my children will enjoy the myriad > benefits of (really) cheap electricity, generated by nuclear fusion. > > Mankind will . . . figure it out. <insert gifs of heads exploding in > frustration; bear with me> What TF is Dennis talking about? Just this – > humans are ingenious, marvelous bastards. We have effectively solved every > large scale problem we’ve faced. Think about it! Remember Paul Ehrlich, the > Mathusian who argued that we faced inevitable global starvation, due to the > linear growth of food production vs the exponential growth of human > populations? Guess what? Human ingenuity solved for it. Folks were > predicting that the streets of Manhattan would be covered under a six-feet > tall layer of horseshit, due to the population increase in NYC and the demand > for more carriages. Human ingenuity solved for it. I remember the terrible > air pollution of the 70s; thanks, yes, to a government mandate (addressing > externalities IS a proper role for governments!) on a NATIONAL level, human > ingenuity solved for it. Heck, a terrible deadly disease that threatened to > wipe out a large chunk of mankind is being knocked down to endemic status > thanks to human ingenuity. When it comes to climate change, humans will > solve for it. Am I some sort of Panglossian optimist? No – I just look at > the track record of humanity. There are a bunch of ideas for how we can > terraform around it; we can also adapt to raising sea levels. Those at the > greatest risk from climate change are also, logically enough, the poorest > around the world. And thanks to free market capitalism and that vaunted > human ingenuity, billions of people are climbing out of poverty. And when > you’re no longer poor, you’re at reduced risk from climate change. > > I know that this is going to be hugely unpopular with many fellow Lincolnites > (and, boy, I really should go to bed). But, hey, I got asked the question. > The bottom line actual answer is – “wanting to address climate change is > admirable; acknowledging that there’s nothing that the town of Lincoln can do > that will actually have an effect on climate change is practical; especially > when one takes into account the additional costs that will be forced on > people in an attempt to virtue signal while making no impact.” > > My $0.02! > > Vty, > > --Dennis > > > From: Belinda Gingrich <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:33 PM > To: Dennis Liu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Forcing Lincoln to ban use of gas and oil at home? > RE: Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting > > Hi Dennis, > What would you do to solve the climate crisis? You give well thought out > ideas and it would be interesting to hear your proposals. > > India and China may be producing more greenhouse gases, as they are > supporting a few more people, but should we do nothing? What ideas to you > have for Lincoln to do? > > If I were building a new home I would want it to be as air tight and well > insulated as possible so that my energy bills for heating would be minuscule. > Who wouldn’t want a Passive House > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating bills? > Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t heard > about better options? > > Is Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/25/methane-leaks-natural-gas-boston/> > contributing to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would > cost enormous amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks > are forming all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we > wouldn’t need all the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay for > a leaky gas infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it away! > https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/25/methane-emissions-natural-gas-massachusetts-climate-change > > <https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/25/methane-emissions-natural-gas-massachusetts-climate-change> > > There are options. Propane tanks are an option for people who have a leaky > old house that needs back-up heat, for people who want a generator because of > trees falling on electric lines (not to mention squirrels causing havoc), and > for people who must have gas cooktops despite the health warnings. This seems > a good libertarian option that doesn’t depend on a central infrastructure > that everyone needs to buy into. Just my 2 cents about a centralized gas > system. > > Warm regards, > Belinda > > > > >> On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Dennis Liu <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Forgive me as I once again touch the third rail here, but a few questions >> for consideration. >> >> A Lincoln environmental group is asking Town Meeting to petition the state >> legislature to grant the town the right to ban the installation of gas and >> oil for new buildings. Stephanie Smoot asked the question, effectively, why >> was this submitted with short notice and not much investigation or >> discussion? Trish O’Hagan responded, effectively, this is a TWO-STEP >> process, and that once the first step is completed (successfully petitioning >> the legislature), THEN Lincoln can conduct that investigation and debate. >> >> To which I ask . . . why not have that investigation and debate NOW? If >> this is something that the green energy committee CAN convince the majority >> of townsfolks to support, THEN go ahead with the petition process? >> Especially since that petition is likely to succeed, so the discussion will >> need to be had anyway. What’s the benefit of doing it in this order? >> >> Perhaps doing it this way makes it EASIER for the proponents to achieve >> their goal? >> >> My $0.02: I am a HUGE fan of induction cooking, preferring it to gas >> cooking (with electric resistance cooking a very distant third). Electric >> dryers work just fine, and any operating cost differential over gas dryers >> is minimal, if not actually cheaper). I do prefer, however, our tankless >> propane(gas) water heater. And if I were to build a new home, I’d strongly >> consider an electric heat pump system, but given our climate, would at the >> least have to supplement that with propane, gas, oil or electric resistance. >> Who cares, though, what that fool Dennis thinks? What’s critical is that >> this is just *MY* preference, *MY* choice. >> >> As a (small-L) libertarian, I’m very hesitant to *force* my choices on other >> people. I think folks should be free to determine for themselves what they >> want and do not want to do. If someone wants to buy bottled water, or use >> canvas grocery tote bags, or drive a Tesla, or recycle plastic, or use a >> plastic straw, then let them do there thing. I’m all for personal or group >> efforts to INFORM people, or PERSUADE people, but passing legislation on all >> that? Ugh. >> >> Yes, I acknowledge that climate change is a “collective-action” problem. >> But for a rule like this one . . . I will stand athwart the arrows and point >> out that this is, effectively, a *signal*. And also a way for the proverbial >> camel to stick its nose into the tent. >> >> Why? Because the total number of *NEW* buildings in Lincoln over the next, >> say, decade, will be, what? 15? 30? How much actual GLOBAL IMPACT ON >> CLIMATE CHANGE will there be as a result of 30 or 40 new buildings running >> heat pumps instead of gas/propane/oil? My calculator doesn’t have that many >> places to the right of the decimal. >> >> No, even for argument’s sake, the only real impact would be to *force* >> *current* homeowners to make the switch. What’s the best path to that, from >> those who would advocate such a change? Start by moving the Overton window, >> and make the change on new construction. That’s a reasonable path forward – >> if you’re in agreement with the end goal. >> >> Keep in mind, though, sadly, that none of matters *in the practical sense* >> because the greenhouse emissions coming out of China, India and other >> massively populated countries pulling their citizenry out of gross poverty >> completely and utterly overwhelms whatever savings might be achieved by >> forcing local townsfolks to making expensive switches to heat pumps. >> >> And do keep in mind that heat pumps, in using electricity available in >> Lincoln, like electric vehicles, are still consuming electricity from fossil >> fuels (albeit with lower collective emissions). >> >> AND also keep in mind that even with subsidies, heat pumps are still costing >> *all of us* real money – those subsidies are coming either out of the >> pockets of taxpayers or rate payers or gas/oil/propane customers. TANSTAAFL. >> >> Thus – my suggestion is that if this is something that the people of Lincoln >> should real consider doing, then please have the debate, fully informed, >> NOW, rather than later. >> >> See also: the Boston Globe, “Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 >> homes a year to electric heat. The actual number: 461” from August 2021, the >> full text posted below. >> https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/21/science/massachusetts-should-be-converting-100000-homes-year-electric-heat-actual-number-461/ >> >> <https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/21/science/massachusetts-should-be-converting-100000-homes-year-electric-heat-actual-number-461/> >> >> >> Vty, >> >> --Dennis >> >> Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year to electric heat. >> The actual number: 461 >> By Sabrina Shankman >> <https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.bostonglobe.com/about/staff-list/staff/sabrina-shankman/?p1=Article_Byline> >> Globe Staff, >> Updated August 21, 2021, 2:36 p.m. >> When Massachusetts officials look into the not-so-distant future of 2030, >> they see 1 million homes across the state comfortably heated and cooled by >> sleek, efficient heat pumps, their old oil- and gas-burning systems — and >> the climate-warming emissions they spewed — relegated to the scrap heap. >> >> But they are woefully behind pace to reach that lofty goal, and the more >> time that passes without an urgent response, the further out of reach it >> gets. >> >> According to the state’s own plan >> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download>, >> Massachusetts should be converting 100,000 homes a year from fossil fuels to >> electricity for heating and cooling. The reality is much different: Just 461 >> homes made the switch last year, according to data reviewed by the Globe. >> >> “We are nine years from 2030, and we have barely begun to scratch the >> surface in terms of what we’re doing and where we need to be going,” said >> Eugenia Gibbons, Massachusetts climate policy director for Healthcare >> Without Harm. “We need to be doing more, faster. The world is burning — I >> don’t know how else to say it.” >> >> Nearly one third >> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/building-sector-technical-report/download> of >> Massachusetts’ emissions come from its more than 2 million buildings. The >> state says eliminating those emissions by shifting to electrical sources — >> and replacing fossil fuel energy generation with renewable sources, such as >> wind, hydro-power, and solar — is critical to achieving net zero emissions >> in time to do the most good. Between 2021 and 2030, the state estimates >> <https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download>, >> about 1 million residential heating systems will come to the end of their >> service lives — each a fossil fuel system that could be replaced by one >> using electricity. >> >> Heat pumps, which use electricity to heat and cool buildings, are the best >> tools for electrifying homes, according to the state’s Clean Energy and >> Climate for 2030 >> <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030> >> plan. Yet clean energy experts and advocates say there are several >> roadblocks to widespread adoption, including high costs, lack of confidence >> by consumers, and ignorance of the technology among many heating contractors. >> >> One of the biggest may be the state’s own energy efficiency program, Mass >> Save. The program, which is funded by a surcharge on utility bills and run >> by utility companies including gas providers, offers rebates to homeowners >> for purchasing certain energy efficient equipment. While Mass Save purports >> to support the state’s climate goals, advocates say it fails to support full >> home electrification, and in some cases, appears to even actively discourage >> it. >> >> As the recent UN climate report <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/> made >> abundantly clear, the time for action is running out. The planet has already >> warmed by roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius since the 19th century, and as this >> summer of extreme weather catastrophes has shown, even this amount of >> warming comes with dire consequences. No matter how quickly we ramp up >> climate measures, the planet is going to get even warmer, the UN panel said; >> how much warmer will be determined by the steps taken now to stop greenhouse >> gas emissions — specifically, by quitting fossil fuels. >> >> Unlike many other states and even countries, Massachusetts has a law on the >> books requiring the state to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. But setting >> a goal and achieving it are two different things, and failure to ramp up now >> could lead to a chaotic rush down the road — or make the goal impossible to >> reach. >> >> “We’re off by orders of magnitude from where we’re going to need to get to,” >> said Cameron Peterson, director of clean energy for the Metropolitan Area >> Planning Council. >> >> At Mass Save, the reluctance is hiding in plain sight. Some homeowners said >> contractors affiliated with Mass Save dissuaded them from removing their >> fossil fuel systems and going all-electric. >> >> Moreover, the list >> <https://www.masssave.com/saving/residential-rebates/electric-heating-and-cooling/heat-pump-qualified-list> >> of heat pumps that qualify for Mass Save rebates includes equipment that is >> not specifically designed for cold climates. And even the 2021 form >> <https://www.masssave.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/Save/Residential/Central_AC_and_Heat_Pump_Rebate_Form.pdf?la=en&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3&hash=FF90FEE79E9BCD2B13FCEF3AB8E40100D07F78B3> >> that homeowners must fill out for a rebate on heat pumps includes this >> note: “The Sponsors of Mass Save do not recommend fully displacing existing >> central heating system with heat pump equipment.” >> >> Of the 461 full-electric conversions in 2020, fewer than half were >> facilitated by Mass Save. The rest came from programs sponsored by the >> Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the Department of Energy Resources. >> Both departments have offered programs that help homeowners purchase heat >> pumps. Though there may have been some additional electric conversions that >> year, experts in the field said that number is likely to be small. >> >> Critics who have been watching the slow progress in Massachusetts are coming >> to the conclusion that, in its current form, the Mass Save program, which >> for 20 years has been effective at increasing energy efficiency, may no >> longer be the best vehicle now that the program’s directive is shifting to >> helping fight the climate crisis. >> >> “It’s difficult to build new imperatives onto old programs,” said Matt >> Rusteika, who leads the buildings initiative at Acadia Center, a clean >> energy advocacy organization. >> >> While the utilities behind Mass Save say they support the state’s >> decarbonization plan, Chris Porter, the director of customer energy >> management for National Grid in New England, stressed that the current 2030 >> plan is still in draft form, and that in National Grid’s opinion, the best >> path forward may not be complete electrification. >> >> “Our perspective is that there are multiple potential pathways to achieving >> the goal, which is decarbonization, and achieving the targets laid out in >> the climate act,” said Porter. “There is still work to be done in order to >> determine what the optimal, lowest-cost path to achieving that outcome is.” >> >> Instead, Porter said, so-called renewable fuels such as hydrogen and >> renewable natural gas, which he said could deliver lower-carbon fuels via >> existing infrastructure, could play a role in the state’s future. >> >> Both of those options are fraught. Critics say >> <https://earthjustice.org/features/report-building-decarbonization> that >> renewable natural gas, composed mainly of methane made from recaptured >> carbon or organic material like compost, likely doesn’t exist at the scale >> needed, and studies have found that gas leaks would still contribute to >> climate warming >> <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta>. >> Meanwhile hydrogen currently is made from methane, and climate-friendlier >> versions are still in development while also being called out >> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.956> recently in a >> scientific journal as potentially as bad or worse than fossil fuels. >> >> A state official said the 2030 climate plan remains in draft form mainly to >> incorporate the more rigorous carbon-cutting goals of the Massachusetts law. >> As a result, any changes would likely step up the ambitions for >> electrification, not reduce them. >> >> The current and proposed incentives in the Mass Save program offer rebates >> to homeowners heating with oil or propane to purchase heat pumps, but not to >> owners with gas systems. Mass Save says this is for financial reasons: Heat >> pumps are expensive. While oil and propane customers can expect to >> experience savings, gas customers could see their bills rise slightly, and >> Mass Save has historically functioned first and foremost to save customers >> money while increasing their energy efficiency. >> >> But converting oil and propane customers alone will not get the state to 1 >> million electrified homes by 2030. Currently in Massachusetts, 750,000 homes >> are heated with oil or propane. To reach the goal, that means at least >> 250,000 gas customers must make the switch, too. >> >> Some residents said that as they sought to convert their homes off of fossil >> fuels, contractors, including those associated with Mass Save’s energy audit >> program, told them that heat pumps alone could not heat a home adequately >> through a Massachusetts winter. >> >> Rusteika saw this firsthand when he converted his own home to heat pumps. “I >> had five contractors here, and only one advised against a full replacement” >> of his fossil fuel system, he said. “That was the Mass Save partner.” >> >> Across the state, homeowners have said that as they sought to convert their >> homes off of fossil fuels, they were told by contractors that it could not >> be done because of the cold winters in Massachusetts. That’s simply not >> true, according to several experts in the field. >> >> “Certainly, we know that whole building electrification can work in >> Massachusetts,” said Jeremy Koo, an associate at Cadmus, a technical and >> strategic consulting company that helped the state develop some of its >> climate plans and which helps implement heat pump programs across the region. >> >> Unlike older models of heat pumps, which earned a reputation in the 1990s >> for failing to adequately heat homes, modern, cold-climate heat pumps can >> function in temperatures as low as negative 13 degrees. But while some >> contractors have embraced the new technology, the idea that heat pumps are >> ineffective lingers. >> >> Ben Butterworth, a Melrose homeowner and the senior manager for Climate and >> Energy Analysis at Acadia Center, said that out the five contractors he >> spoke with, only one was comfortable fully converting his oil-burning >> heating system to heat pumps. Because he works in the field and is well >> versed in the technology, he knew to look around for a more amenable >> contractor to help him make the switch. But others might be more likely to >> take the first contractor’s advice and keep a fossil fuel system for backup. >> >> Out in the field, Dan Zamagni, the director of operations for New England >> Ductless, said his company has installed several whole-home heat pumps, and >> has full confidence that they can do the job. >> >> “I think that with a trained eye and the right situation, you can make >> anything work,” said Zamagni. “These systems are becoming more and more >> efficient.” >> >> For many homeowners, the high costs of installation and operation can >> represent another big hurdle. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for >> heat pumps, so different kinds of equipment are needed depending on the >> specifics of an individual building. Installation costs can have a huge >> range. A whole-home heat pump program run by the Massachusetts Clean Energy >> Center found an average project cost of $21,479, which was higher than >> expected, the program’s director, Meg Howard, noted in a blog. >> >> “I am hopeful that this cost premium will shrink as installers become more >> accustomed to designing whole home heat pump configurations,” she wrote >> <https://www.masscec.com/blog/2020/09/29/september-whole-home-heat-pump-pilot-update-still-time-apply>. >> >> Once heat pumps are up and running, homeowners who were previously on oil or >> propane can expect their monthly bills to decrease. While homes previously >> heating with gas might see a slight increase in the cold months, the annual >> bills are likely to even out because of savings from air conditioning, >> Rusteika said. >> >> Of course a lot of this depends on the house, according to the Northeast >> Energy Efficiency Partnerships, an energy-efficiency nonprofit. Homeowners >> who weatherize their homes before getting estimates will find they save on >> both installation and operating costs, while a drafty home is going to end >> up costing more. >> >> For oil and propane users making the switch to heat pumps, Mass Save rebates >> can add up to as much as $6,250 in savings for the average sized home, >> according to the Acadia Center. >> >> By any metric, the rate of heat pump installations is behind. The vast >> majority of heat pumps are installed in homes where they will supplement >> existing oil, gas, or propane systems, not replace them outright. And in >> 2020, the Mass Save program helped install just 3,300 heat pumps, far short >> even of its own goal of 15,000 a year. >> >> Now, a state-run board that oversees the program, the Energy Efficiency >> Advisory Council, is pushing the utilities behind Mass Save to go further. >> The council says the program should up its goal to 120,000 heat pumps >> installed between 2021 and 2024, or 40,000 a year. But there’s no clear goal >> around how many buildings would be fully electrified in that process, and it >> remains to be seen whether Mass Save will ultimately adopt the council’s >> goal. >> >> Installing heat pumps but keeping a fossil fuel system as a backup helps >> decrease greenhouse emissions, and can lead to increased consumer confidence >> in the technology, making homeowners more likely to fully electrify in the >> future, several experts said. >> >> But there’s a downside, too. “Keeping in fossil fuel equipment has >> ramifications not just on how far the state gets towards its emissions >> targets, but also has implications for the infrastructure that’s in place to >> continue supporting fossil fuel delivery,” said Koo, of Cadmus. >> >> >> >> >> From: Lincoln <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Trish O'Hagan >> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 3:03 PM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town >> meeting >> >> Dear Stephanie, >> Thanks so much for your interest in the webinar. Hopefully you will join us >> this week as we all share ideas and learn together about electrification of >> buildings as a way to combat the climate emergency. >> To be clear, the Citizen's petition, if passed, would simply ask the >> legislature to give Lincoln the option to require new construction to be all >> electric. At that time, Lincoln could begin a robust discussion about what >> works best for our town and would require a vote at a town meeting in the >> future. >> I hope this helps clear up some of your concerns. >> Best, >> Trish O'Hagan >> Lincoln Mothers Out Front >> >>> On 03/12/2022 1:39 PM Stephanie Smoot <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> There is so much to know about impacts of this proposed proposition- I'm >>> very suprised that days before the meeting such significant legislation is >>> being proposed. Especially how it impacts costs to Lincoln Residents. >>> None of this has been studied in any depth and data on our current NetZero >>> buildings such as the expensive all-electric new school is unconfirmed-are >>> we comfortable in them and are they affordable to run? >>> >>> Its important to note that none of the towns mentioned (Acton Concord >>> Lexington) have actually passed such initiatives and there is already a >>> NetZero stretch code proposed state-wide. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stephanie Smoot >>> >>> 857 368-9175 work >>> 781 941-6842 personal cell >>> 617 595-5217 work cell >>> 126 Chestnut Circle >>> Lincoln, MA 01773 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:06 AM Trish O'Hagan <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Citizen’s Petition — Restrict Fossil Fuel Systems in New Buildings >>>> Related to climate change advocacy, a group of residents is asking Town >>>> Meeting to support a petition to the state legislature that would require >>>> new construction be all-electric for heating, cooling, and indoor cooking. >>>> Lincoln would join other towns who similarly have petitioned the state. >>>> The changes are necessary to help achieve the statewide reductions in >>>> greenhouse gas emissions nset in the climate act signed in March 2021. >>>> Learn more at Zoom meetings on Monday 3/14, 7-8pm, and Thursday, 3/17, >>>> 3-4pm (links below), or call Trish O’Hagan (781-248-5657) or Paul Shorb >>>> (617-543-5590) with questions. Additional information will also be posted >>>> at https://www.lincolngreenenergy.org/ >>>> <https://www.lincolngreenenergy.org/>. >>>> >>>> Time: Mar 14, 2022 07:00 PM >>>> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82072433671 >>>> <https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82072433671> >>>> Meeting ID: 820 7243 3671 >>>> >>>> Mar 17, 2022 03:00 PM >>>> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81095315671 >>>> <https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81095315671> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/ >>>> <http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/>. >>>> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ >>>> <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/>. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln >>>> <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>. >>>> >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/ >> <http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/>. >> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ >> <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/>. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln >> <https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>.
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
