If didn’t know better, I’d think our dendrophobic Mayor Travis Schaunaman was opening a new front in his war on trees:
Northwestern Energy is clearing trees along First Avenue North and then northeast along the railway to make room for a new power line. The wooden poles on this line will be extra tall—65 to 70 feet instead of the usual 25 to 40 feet. Boy, I’d like to see the trees those poles came from.
Northwestern Energy shares my love of trees. “Everyone likes trees,” Northwestern says (ignoring Mayor Schaunaman, of course) on its Tree Planting and Vegetation Management page. “They give us shade, save energy, clean the air we breathe and look nice.” But nobody wants trees knocking out power. Sometimes our big green friends (or our bygone beetle-bitten brown friends) have to go.
Nonetheless, Northwestern promises to be fair to landowners and maybe even replace their felled landmarks:
Sometimes it’s necessary to remove a tree that has become a hazard to the public or our electrical system.
If a tree or trees are classified as hazardous, NorthWestern Energy will correct this situation by removing the tree, leaving the wood and discussing a replacement option with the property owner. Wood larger than four inches from the tree belongs to the property owner and will be left behind. Small pieces of wood and branches are chipped at the job site and hauled away [Northwestern Energy, “Tree Planting and Vegetation Management,” retrieved 2019.07.25].
That’s mighty green of our electric utility. Maybe Northwestern would consider installing some heavy-duty planters and frames below the wires and plant some spreading leafy vines that could replace some shade. Hmmm… imagine the possibilities….
And maybe Mayor Schaunaman could follow their lead: if he insists on playing anti-regulation Reagan by lifting requirements for trees to break up asphalt spans, perhaps he could compromise and require big pavers to pay for planting trees in some other greener part of town.
Isn’t Schaunaman aware that green areas and trees especially are an asset to a city? Doesn’t he know that cities work at planting more trees and maintaining more green areas because they’re better for business and lure new residents?
I wish all power lines and others were buried.
There are smaller trees that are fine below the power lines.
And yes….take a tree down here, plant one or more over there.
If we put power lines udnerground, we don’t have to worry about trees knocking them out… but do the roots ever grow into them and cause trouble?
Miami requires new power lines go underground… and downtown Miami managed to avoid power outages during Hurricane Irma thanks to underground lines.
AAN says this 3.3-mile 115-kilovolt line costs $3.5 million. This industry page says underground lines cost 4 to 14 times more to install. Underground lines are also harder to repair, and if one breaks, the outage lasts longer, since it takes longer to find and fix damage.
Hooray for fast outages?
Madison is still in it’s years long process of converting their overhead powerlines into underground ones. Most of their old overhead system was built in the 1940s and 1950s, so it needs replacing. As all the new powerlines are underground, no trees have had to be removed as far as I’m aware.
However, the reconstruction of 2nd Street in 2015 resulted in the loss of lots of large trees along that stretch of road. The highway was widened, and nicer sidewalks were installed. Driving into town on 2nd street was a unique experience before the rebuild. The trees were so large and shady, it made a neat tunnel to drive under.
The same thing will happen to Washington Ave, from 2nd Street south to Prostrollos. As with 2nd Street, the road will be widened and the sidewalks and utilities will be improved. Trees on the east side of Washington Ave have already been removed, or have been marked for removal.
Since the removal of those trees is necessary to widen the roadway, should there be a plan in place to plant new ones as well? I don’t think any new trees were planted along the rebuilt 2nd Street.
Carbon Offsets For Sale: Flying is one of the most damaging things we do to our environment. However, you can mitigate some of your carbon footprint by buying carbon offsets. Be sure the money goes to worthy causes that work to help the cause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-carbon-offsets.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20190726§ion=aBreak?campaign_id=9&instance_id=11186&segment_id=15571&user_id=dd86f4353d3ae6e373ad9c389586a608®i_id=72790262ction=aBreak
Buying carbon offsets still allows the carbon to be emitted, you just feel better about it.
It is a problem, because there are a lot of benefits for people to be able to move around freely around the globe, both in terms of business opportunities and in terms of interacting with different cultures.
One option is to get as much done as possible during a business trip, so that additional flights are not necessary. Making jet fuel from bio-based sources is another. Another is to fund things that actively remove carbon from the air.
Because “good feelings “ are bad, Mr. Negativity Bias? Carbon offsets are a good thing. Do you ever wonder why smart people don’t pay attention to what you say? Because negativity doesn’t solve problems. Innovation and application does and you lack a reasonable amount of them.
Ummm….I just gave you multiple ways you could be spending that money from your carbon offset that would actually reduce or eliminate the carbon.
“One option is to get as much done as possible during a business trip, so that additional flights are not necessary. Making jet fuel from bio-based sources is another. Another is to fund things that actively remove carbon from the air.”
How does more electricity from wind and solar displace the carbon emitted by a jet plane? It doesn’t. Use carbon offsets to reduce or eliminate the carbon that is being emitted.
Republicans typically look first to find negativity and excuses for the fact that they’re too cheap, greedy, and selfish to do the right thing. America doesn’t look to South Dakota for much (certainly not new ideas) because of people with negative attitudes. About all SD negativity produces is also negative. It drives innovative people to move away to places where positivity and modernism are valued and nurtured. After a hundred years of the most innovative kids moving away there’s no one left to teach it. The skill gap never gets smaller.
McT … What you’re proposing is listed prominently in the very first paragraph of the article. This shows me that you didn’t even read it before you chose the easiest response. Negativity. It looks like you value yourself only as a teacher and you’ve given yourself carte blanche to stop learning. Only someone who works continually as a pupil can be a valid teacher.
Innovation? If we want to go to Mars, we will have to get there faster than chemical rockets can take us. Otherwise passengers will exceed radiation dose limits.
With nuclear thermal propulsion we can explore the Solar System. With nuclear energy one can power communities on other worlds when access to the Sun is not possible or the strength of the Sun is not strong enough. Some states are doing well in their support of aerospace.
We will need both nuclear and renewables to address climate change. They could help each other with their various problems.
If you want to simply build more renewables, there are several corporations that will be interested in building them for you. But wait a minute….aren’t corporations bad? Oh well, good luck squaring that circle.
I am on your side. I am supporting a carbon free economy which will satisfy how people will actually use energy. And those jobs should be occurring across the energy spectrum in South Dakota!
But we shouldn’t have to wait for batteries to work while emitting extra carbon. Thus I support more nuclear with my renewables.
From Mike Allen on Axios:
“The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is a multinational experiment that’s poised to open in 2025. If you have any leftover Large Hadron Collider jokes, this will be the next grandiose physics experiment you’ll be able to use those on. The goal — which entails the cooperation of 35 nations and will be based in southern France — is a commercial-scale fusion reactor. Right now, nuclear reactors harness energy through fission, but in December 2025 the first operations will launch. It will take a subsequent 10 years to ramp up to full operations. Earlier this week portions of an Indian-manufactured 3,850 ton cryostat were installed, making the project 65 percent complete. The final product will have the largest superconducting magnets on the planet containing plasma that will hit 150 million degrees Celsius.”
Nathanial Gronewold, E&E News
Oops. The above comment was from Walt Hickey’s Numlock News. Sorry.
Fusion would be helpful to have in the mix. But the reaction hasn’t been sustained yet, and there are issues for materials that experience the heat and radiation from the reactions.
Fusion still generate radioactive waste. But the duration of isolation would not be as long as direct burial of nuclear waste (probably 100 years or so).
The good news is that if even if fusion never works, we are likely to have more materials from fusion research that are resistant to heat and irradiation, and probably better superconducting materials too. And a room temperature superconducting material would help cut down on transmission losses from all sources of power (renewable, nuclear, whatever).
Likewise, many of the improvements we can make in energy storage may come from NASA to support missions to the Moon and to Mars. It has to be extremely reliable and able to withstand extreme temperatures….good to know for a cold morning or a hot afternoon in South Dakota.
So research (be it in energy storage or fusion) always has benefits….we just don’t know what the biggest benefits will be at the start. Nobody started research in radioactivity in the 19th century with the intent of developing medical imaging, but that happened.