The push to electrify everything as a way to boost the economy without broiling the planet focuses on ways to switch over vehicles, factories and other big fuel users. But what about smaller things like, say, a trash compactor?
“We have to make serious inroads on fossil fuel use. Over the next 20 years we’ve got to replace police cars, fire engines, snowplows, graders – all that stuff is going to have to be replaced with electric,” said Stephen Rasche of Canterbury, who has sponsored a petitioned warrant article to spend $60,000 for an electric trash compactor at the town transfer station. “This is really easy and cheap as a first case. If it can’t go through, what can?”
The station has long used the compactor in the back of a garbage truck to reduce the volume of trash before it gets hauled away. This requires keeping the engine idling, using fuel and spewing pollutants. An electric compactor would be cleaner, quieter and less expensive to operate. People have long talked about making the switch but problems have always gotten in the way, including COVID clobbering the supply chain, Rasche said.
“I thought it was time,” Rasche commented.
Or maybe not.
Rasche is a member of the town’s Solid Waste Committee but he is pursuing this project on this own. The committee is backing a different petitioned warrant article to study whether to move the entire transfer station, which faces various issues.
“As a committee, we’re looking to gather town support for seeking alternatives. If we do that, then investing any further into the equipment there might end up being (lost),” said Committee Chairman Rick Marcou. “I understand where he’s coming from. … But it’s a little premature and isn’t in line with the goals the committee is trying to achieve.”
Particularly in the face of expected property tax hikes from other spending in town and schools as budgets rise and state support declines, Marcou said he thinks the electric compactor isn’t enough of a priority.
The difficulty with electrification is that it’s rarely enough of a priority.
The climate benefit of switching from fuel-burning systems is often invisible whereas the cost of buying and installing new equipment is very visible. Other benefits of going electric are so long-term that they may not sway opinions – such as lower operating costs – or are relatively minor, such as less noise.
So it’s easy to put off electrification while you deal with other issues. And there are always other issues.
This matters. The slogan “electrify everything” is a central pillar of reducing future climate-change damage and not just because electricity is relatively clean and getting cleaner when compared to oil, gas, propane or other fossil fuels.
Just as important: Electric motors are much more efficient than motors which depend on tiny explosions to move chunks of metal over and over. As a general rule, electric motors convert 80% to 90% of energy into work whereas internal combustion engines are lucky to hit 40%. That’s why the batteries in a Tesla hold the energy equivalent of less than three gallons of gas yet can send the car 250 miles.
So electrifying a system is roughly equivalent to doubling its output. An economy that electrifies is an economy that can thrive on less energy, making it less vulnerable to price swings or supply constraints while contributing less to future climate-change disasters.
It’s a change we should make whenever possible. That doesn’t make it any less painful to shell out lots of money in the process and it doesn’t mean that every bit of electrification is equally valid. But it does mean that we need to assign a lot more importance to this part of the energy transition, to move it up the list of our priorities.
Return to the Concord Monitor