Skip to main content

NIMBY...IMBY

By
NimbyThis morning, NPR's Morning Edition ran an energy NIMBY story with a twist: An "In My Back Yard" piece titled, "City Dweller Laments Loss Of Urban Trees," detailing the difficulties power companies can face in dealing with urban homeowners.
Utility people say they can't win. If they trim too aggressively, residents, like me, complain that they are destroying the canopy in an old neighborhood. But if untrimmed trees take out power lines during a storm, those same residents jump on the phone and demand that the utility turn the juice back on right away. Earl Eutsler is a District of Columbia arborist. He says there's only one way to solve the conflict between trees and power lines.

"Planting the proper tree in this space. For example, the amur maple we installed in front of your house," he explains.

"Proper tree, proper place" is the motto for the city's plan to replace tall trees under power lines with species that are more, shall we say, cooperative.

Eutsler takes me for a drive in his natural gas-powered car to show me what this might look like. He points to a series of purple leaf plum trees, planted in the "tree box," or curbside plot along the street, where stately elms used to stand. The new trees are "starting to establish themselves," Eutsler says. "These here that are already 15 feet are going to get another 10 feet tall, and that's really it," he says.

"But they're not really providing shade," I counter, staring at a perfectly respectable stand of trees that will never soar or form a graceful allee, "Not in the sense you can go out and sit with your neighbors under a tree like that."

"No, you're right," says Eutsler. "But it's more manageable, it's less dangerous."

City foresters encourage residents who want tall trees to plant them closer to homes, but away from the power lines. Despite my love for big trees, I'm not too crazy about having them right next to the house.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'd love to have seen the look on the face of the Pepco guy when the reported made his comment about the allee.
September 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Matthew66 said…
Actually, there are other alternatives. In Canberra, where I grew up, from the 1950's to the 1980's the utility put all the poles and their wires in the backyards, so no street trees were ever affected by power lines. People in Canberra are less inclined to have large trees in their backyards, probably because all backyards are fenced. From the 1980's on, all utility services have been placed underground, in PVC pipes (which tree roots avoid) so there is no adverse interraction between trees and utility services.

Canberra has some of the most attractive streetscapes of any post-war urban/suburban environment I have visited, although that is of course in the eye of the beholder.
September 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Norske-Division said…
Here in St.Louis Missouri they are working on putting the power lines underground. Even with aggressive tree trimming we often get power outages. I think it's a worthwhile investment to get both better reliability and not have to damage the tree canopy.
September 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, put the power lines underground. That's the solution. Underground power is required by most building codes for new subdivisions, and it's much better if one has storms or earthquakes.
September 11, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Arvid said…
Why don't you have the power lines underground in the US? I remember when I visited California and thought the power wires all over the place made it look like a third world country.
September 11, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Power lines underground have a tendancy to flood in some areas and are much costlier to repair if they are damaged due to water or earthquake.
September 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more