To the editor:
Last week, Marblehead Light Department asked town residents to curtail energy use in response to a massive spike in regional energy prices.*
The problem was upstream: A generator in the regional grid (ISO-NE) which went offline sending the price for a marginal megawatt hour skyrocketing. Marblehead, along with towns throughout Massachusetts, faces the problem of how to deal with energy infrastructure that is not just old, but worsening the climate (as I write this, the current energy mix is 55% natural gas).
Recently, we have seen different visions from two of our elected representatives for how to solve this and other difficult problems. Last week, Sen. Edward Markey voted against reducing fees and slashing bureaucratic red tape for the construction of new nuclear reactors. In contrast, Rep. Seth Moulton voted for this measure in May. Also this week, Moulton called on state legislators to back the Rail Link connecting North and South stations.
The basic philosophical difference here is should we build things, or not? On this issue, Moulton has it right.
Marblehead is a great town at least in part because it’s in a great country, burning with ambition and full of opportunity. But greatness must be earned. It must be built: the Manhattan Project, the interstate highway system, Apollo.
Building an energy-abundant, zero-carbon economy is a challenge on par, if not greater, than those prior achievements. Solar and wind energy will be critical components of the solution. But their intermittency cannot stand alone, particularly with the rise of AI, a prosperity-creating technology that requires “always on” power.
In supporting nuclear power and advocating investment in mass transit,Moulton argues for plentiful zero-carbon energy and a cleaner, more efficient approach to transport. If we want Marblehead’s lights to stay on at a reasonable price, we need this kind of pro-building vision.
Nick Ward
Rolleston Road
