TurretLauncher OP t1_jdks44l wrote
Reply to comment by 51stheFrank in Glenvale Solar, a Boston-based company, is planning to install a 240-acre solar installation in Keene, with construction beginning in 2026 by TurretLauncher
> "In its first year of operation, Keene Meadow Solar will generate enough energy to power 14,000 New Hampshire homes, and avoid CO2 emissions equal to that sequestered by 88,000 acres of forest"
nixstyx t1_jdmn6t6 wrote
There are much better places to put panels. Sure, it reduces CO2 emissions equal to whatever, but that's still forest acres that are gone when they didn't have to be.
It's also destroying wildlife habitat that could remain if we were more strategic with solar placement.
Smartalum t1_jdnu2eg wrote
As opposed to what? Fossil Fuel extraction is significantly more damaging.
nixstyx t1_jdnvkvo wrote
As opposed to putting panels where there isn't already forest. ... didn't think it was that much of a mystery. Top of buildings, over larger parking areas, as an upright array overlooking an already cleared area.
littleirishmaid t1_jdlwdmk wrote
Did you even read their comment?
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm6vaa wrote
Did you even read my response? Keene Meadow Solar will use 240 acres “and avoid CO2 emissions equal to that sequestered by 88,000 acres of forest.” Hence the concern about “clearing forests that (ideally) serve as carbon sinks” is misplaced, as this project reduces CO2 emissions literally hundreds of times better than these 240 acres of cleared forest could.
littleirishmaid t1_jdm74h5 wrote
Yes, I read it. Copied and pasted everywhere. Their comment made a lot of good points. Why destroy nature to save nature?
Cantide756 t1_jdmhy2y wrote
And these announcements never cover the co2 cost of clearing the land, creating the panels, shipping the panels, and when they are no longer fructose, disposal of the panels. I don't know this company, but I've worked with a bunch that cut a ton of corners to get the things up and violate NEC, such as the array in bedford on the Goffstown line. They put on paper that they are charging for and getting the expensive, recyclable panels, and ends up using the cheap hazmat disposal ones. Solar power just isn't there yet. Not to make it worth while to destroy habitats. Covering parking lots and schools? That's a start, but why not roads?
Smartalum t1_jdnty0q wrote
Cue the Magats. With idiotic comments.
Meanwhile natural habitats are destroyed every day to extract fossil fuels. Every read about the impact of fracking on water tables?
Just utter nonsense. Solar is by far the least intrusive in terms of damage to the environment.
You want electricity? It has to come from somewhere.
Cantide756 t1_jdnzqfm wrote
Photovoltaic is not the solution. It's not there yet, but idiots think it's the best. It's made with hazardous materials, except for the really expensive stuff made in the US, takes a ton of space, has a short half life with no feasible way to recycle it. And please don't bitch about least intrusive to the environment like you don't benefit from ecological destructup on and human slavery used to get the materials for lithium batteries, rare earth magnets, and photovoltaic cells.
NHGuy t1_jdmkvwz wrote
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing on the discussion, however the point of a solar farm is to generate renewable electricity, not to save nature
nixstyx t1_jdmnt7r wrote
I'd like to see the math on those 88k acres. If it's that simple, then the solution to climate change must be to cut down all the forests and install solar panels, right? By the math you'd see a 366x reduction in carbon. But, you wouldn't because it doesn't work that way.
Plus sequestration is is a term that's being misinterpreted and misapplied with reckless abandon these days. If a forest grows and then you cut and harvest the timber, that carbon is still sequestered in the wood. Then when the forest regrows, guess what? More carbon is sequestered in the wood. More importantly, sequestration is one of the least important things a forest can do for overall environmental health.
musicdude2202 t1_jdmds7p wrote
Curious though is that based on raw output or actual applied usage. People play games with the numbers quite frequently. I don’t know the exact formula but the power coming from those panels probably does offset that much at the panel however inversion to AC power will cut that down significantly because we can’t transmit DC power across large distances, the voltage drop is too significant. There is also voltage use when returning that power to DC for any battery operated thing that is used. So in reality I’m very curious if soup to nuts those numbers are what they say they are or just the feels good numbers associated with raw power generated by the panels.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments