tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-895628231132048998.post7477834395325646217..comments2023-08-27T06:46:20.931-07:00Comments on Mass Greens: Recent correspondenceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01203946302610654952noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-895628231132048998.post-39693725942230905882010-01-04T05:59:14.519-08:002010-01-04T05:59:14.519-08:00Peter,
Mount Tom isn’t going away anytime soon. Th...Peter,<br />Mount Tom isn’t going away anytime soon. They’ve just invested over $50 million in new emissions control equipment. And when GDF Suez says they’re trying to do more renewables, what that really means is that they’re considering burning biomass in coal plants – something that’s been discussed for the Mount Tom plant. Under the current carbon accounting rules of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), CO2 emitted from tree-burning isn’t even reported and in fact, each kilowatt-hour of power generated from trees creates a renewable energy credit that the plant can sell. This travesty of an idea is on hold pending completion of the new sustainabilty study of biomass burning, but we don’t expect an amazingly lucrative scam like RECs for biomass burning to die an easy death. <br /><br />Converting Mount Tom to solar is a nice idea but I can’t imagine the scale of solar panels that would be required to produce the approximately 135 MW of power the plant represents. The only thing that’s going to make Mount Tom and other plants like it “greener” is if they produce less energy, and that means we all have to get serious about conservation and efficiency. <br /><br />Mary Booth <br />Massachusetts Environmental Energy AllianceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884898884494599725noreply@blogger.com