binghamton rates! in the best environment category

In Friday's paper it was printed that Binghamton rated 9nth as one of the greenest (eco friendly) cities in the US. Hooray, I said-- we get some recognition beyond our early St. Patrick's day parade!

It is from the magazine Country Living. Does anyone read this magazine? Actually, I subscribe to this magazine and never noticed Binghamton being mentioned in the pages. Most of the magazine is about the great second homes that dot the country from New England to Montana to the Hamptons. Yes, mostly second homes. If they are first homes, then they are the homes of people that no longer need to work for a living. I like reading the magazine, despite the focus on the wealthy. "Living in the Country for the Rich and Sometimes Famous" could be the title of the magazine.

So, why does Binghamton make the list? I would expect them to say "Burlington, Vermont" or "Ithaca, NY for the most obvious reasons. But Binghamton?

Now, I know we have some things going on here that are good for the earth -- like our great recycling programs. But, Oh shucks... I mean why would Country Living notice?

I am hoping to find out a little more about it!

Does anyone from Country Living want to stop by my house? I am a long term subscriber. I would like to tell you more about the NYRI powerlines that threaten our area and neighboring areas. I would like to tell you about the RR trains that are parking in Chenango Forks along RT 12 -- they certainly look like they are full of deadly chemicals.

I would like to show you some good stuff, too. But really, how did you make the decision? We ranked 9 out of 379?




THE TOP 10 'GREEN PLACES'
Country Home magazine will publish a list of the "Best Green Places" in its April edition. The top rankings among 379 metropolitan areas are:



1. Burlington, Vt.

2. Ithaca

3. Corvallis, Ore.

4. Springfield, Mass.

5. Wenatchee, Wash.

6. Charlottesville, Va.

7. Boulder, Colo.

8. Madison, Wis.

9. Binghamton

10. Champaign-Urbana, Ill.

Too few transmission lines to generators outside the state limits access to renewable power

The subject says it all! NYRI is using just this in their public relations campaign in Washington for the 200 mile HVDC electrical transmission line they plan on building from Utica to Orange County. And now they are saying their powerlines are green and will carry renewable power, like power from wind farms.

It turns out there is some truth to the reality that wind farms may need more electrical transmission lines if they are to deliver the power to urban areas (like Los Angeles or New York City). The target areas may not be capable or willing to generate their own wind power. There have been offshore projects that propose generating wind out in the ocean, requiring some kind of transmission lines to be built in the ocean to the shore. These projects are very controversial on Long Island and Massachusetts. Mostly they are controversial on the grounds that wind towers will spoil the waterfront and spoil recreational ocean use. I have not read too many objections to the transmission lines to land, but maybe these are secondary concerns.

In the meantime, Central NY has a power line project on the table. NYRI wants to build a new powerline that will start in Marcy near Utica) and end up in Orange County. Its purpose is to bring power to the northern suburbs on NY. They may need more power to continue their suburban growth.

NYRI is using some studies that show the metropolitan region will need more power within the next 10 years. Since this area has been incredibly slow building power generating plants, this investment group sees an easy profit in providing a quicker solution. Money can be made in the short term selling energy to this growing market of electrical hogs. (NYRI calls the city one of the largest users of electrical power in the world).

Will NYC care about where the electricity is generated or mind paying too much for it? Probably not, if no other sources are available. Will they build their own power generation plants if they can get the power from upstate or Canada via transmission lines? The incentive of building their own plants will be lessened if they can just buy the power.

Buying the power from Canada or outside the region has its risks for NY. But then again, NYC has taken these very same risks with their water supply. They have allowed all their water to be supplied by upstate NY and they are not concerned by their lack of resources. They will sleep well in their air conditioned apartments with power from upstate NY, too.

NYRI is smart to make the wind power tie in. I tip my hat to their logic.

But, in reality, NYRI is not supporting wind power, coal, hydro power, tire burning, methane gas or any particular means of generating power. They are just building a power line and their bottom line is the price they buy to the price they sell at. The profit margin is what they care about. Is their investment profitable?


The subject line for this rant was taken from an article about wind generation and power lines in a different state -- California. It is interesting only for the comparison, which is scary.

A patchwork of powerlines to cities in the US is just a bandaid. Cities need to start solving their future energy needs with more than a 10 year plan. Building transmission lines long distances to pull in energy generated by another area or another country will be creating more future problems for the next generation to solve.

LA needs powerlines from distant places to solve their local energy consumption needs. Because the local power grid is a mess, and the utility companies are irresponsible, solve the problem with transmisson lines and buy power from profit making investment firms that build them. (Not exactly a summary -- but one of the points made in the article)