From today’s schedule for the Guv:
12:30 p.m. – Governor Patrick participates in a major clean energy and economic development announcement.
Evergreen Solar
257 Cedar Hill St .
Marlborough
Evergreen has been Patrick’s favorite enviro company since the campaign. I wonder how much and how well this will overlap with DiMasi’s own green energy plan. In any event, there’s reason to hope for a very productive relationship between the two on this issue. We’ll see what comes out today.
Update: Well, this might be it, ya think?
MARLBORO- Evergreen Solar Inc., a manufacturer of solar power products, said today it plans to build a $150 million manufacturing plant in Westboro.
Under the expansion, set for the campus of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Evergreen Solar’s work force in Massachusetts would double to more than 600 people.
The company reported in a news release that several states competed for the plant but that Evergreen Solar decided to build in Massachusetts because of Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s solar incentive program and public financial incentives that include up to $23 million in state grants, up to $17.5 million in low-interest loans and a low-cost 30-year lease of land.
My emphasis in that. Sounds like Patrick really wanted this one … Is there a more comprehensive plan forthcoming?
syphax says
I’m working hard to get my town to get more active on sustainable energy issues (conservation, efficiency, renewables) with mixed results to date. The main barriers are inertia, attention, and education, not economics (the stuff we want to start with has very good paybacks).
<
p>
State support in any capacity is welcome!
gary says
<
p>
Could you elaborate on the paybacks?
syphax says
Compact fluorescents pay for themselves in 4-6 months- from a financial view, they really are a no brainer. Some people don’t like the light, but there was some article I saw recently in which they were actually found to have higher-quality light than incandescents, however that was defined.
<
p>
After that, things are very site dependent. Insulation is a no-brainer for payback in many cases, esp. in post-war houses (my house had almost nothing in the attic when we moved in 7 years ago). Insulating water heaters is generally a no-brainer.
<
p>
More efficient heating systems, etc. all have paybacks which vary.
<
p>
Sorry not to have more numbers at my fingertips-
david says
stomv says
1. Great! Jobs are great, skilled jobs are even better.
<
p>
2. What about pollution and manufacturing waste? Generally, this is nasty stuff, but I don’t know what parts of the process will be done in Mass, and more importantly, how are we dealing with the heavy metals and other waste?
<
p>
3. 250 MW by 2017 isn’t enough. The increase in load during daylight hours is about 4000 MW in April (for New England). It’s even more in July and August (about 6000 MW) in New England; it’s about 3000 MW in January. This is important because supply must meed demand instantaneously, which means that during the day peaking plants are activated to make up the extra supply — and these peaking plants tend to pollute more (and use diesel fuel, ugh!) than baseload plants. What’s nice about solar is that it produces the most when electricity demand is the highest, so it tends to offset the need for peaking plants.
<
p>
That’s why 250 MW by 2017 isn’t enough. They need to multiply that by a factor of 10. Of course, it’s expensive and we’re at 0 now, so they’d need to be installing 250 MW per year, which ain’t going to happen. But, they could be doing better than 25 MW per year throughout New England, that’s for sure.
<
p>
4. The easiest way to make (3) happen is to increase Massachusetts’ RPS and require a percentage of the makeup be solar power (or phrase it to be technology-independent by requiring a certain percentage (statistically) be generated during the peak hours, say 75% of the total).
jeremybthompson says
<
p>
Does MA Technology Collaborative, with its Renewable Energy Trust, do economic development planning? I don’t know much about it, but it seems like their focus is more on funding than on planning. Any insight?
<
p>
Also…
<
p>
<
p>
…Evergreen’s decision is welcome news, but it’s always good to take statements like the one Charley emphasizes with a grain of salt. Companies have all the reason in the world to attribute location decisions to public incentives – that’s how they keep the incentives coming. Conversely, there’s no upside to admitting that a final site selection would have made sense even without the incentive. I’m not saying this is the case here, but it is in many instances, and we’d do well to maintain a critical stance vis-à-vis any attribution of private-sector activity to public incentives.