Comments
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdks44l wrote
> "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.
A_Man_Who_Writes t1_jdlu4x8 wrote
Golf courses
51stheFrank t1_jdlv7t3 wrote
Abandoned ones anyway. Active ones sound subject to damage.
snowman603 t1_jdlvisb wrote
It would take an extra incentive for parking canopy projects to pencil out. It’s a lot more steel and a lot more expensive than ground mounted solar. Parking canopies don’t make financial sense in NH yet unless the state or feds want to subsidize those projects to encourage developers to do them.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm5znn wrote
Parking canopies do provide extra benefits though. In addition to providing protection from sun, rain, etc., they can deliver power directly into parked electric vehicles. Having the power generated that close to the point of consumption eliminates all electricity transmission costs.
hardsoft t1_jdm843j wrote
The transmission loses are pretty low and now you're talking about a lot more power conversation hardware.
You're not going directly from whatever voltage a panel array outputs to the car battery...
And I haven't seen these often in northern climates. They might make sense for small parking areas or only the perimeter of larger parking lots. Otherwise seems like they'd make snow removal a nightmare.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm9cmj wrote
There are cars today with solar panels on the car hood/trunk/roof. It’s the same 12 volts that come out from the cigarette lighter port. Low-voltage solar power can flow into that port as well as out of it.
hardsoft t1_jdmdk9m wrote
Not for an EV. There are no EVs that run on 12V. They still have 12V batteries for accessories and such because it's considered an inherently safe voltage (low shock risk) and so they can save money on wiring and use chassis as a ground.
The propulsion system uses higher voltage batteries and regardless, the output voltage and current from a solar panel can vary with light intensity. You need conversation electronics.
And solar on an EV is basically a gimmick. The minimal extra range relative to the additional cost is absurd.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmj0iu wrote
> “All the ECUs in the vehicle are powered from the low voltage, as well as the power relays that separate power from the high-voltage battery pack and the rest of the high-voltage network in the car,” he said. “That separation allows us to safely disconnect the high voltage from the low voltage when the vehicle is not being driven or in the event of a crash.”
>
> EVs can be assisted to start when the 12V battery has become too depleted to allow the high voltage battery to power up. In an EV jump start, you are essentially augmenting the 12V battery, like you would with a traditional jump start, but there is no high current surge like there would be during the jump starting application on an internal combustion engine vehicle. The jump starter provides auxiliary capacity to the system to allow it to power up. So, yes, jump starting an EV is sometimes necessary.
As the above clearly shows, EVs do indeed run on 12V batteries. You can't start an EV (i.e., make it run) or operate an EV (all the 100+ ECUs - Electronic Control Units - run only on 12V current) without 12V battery power. It's this 12V battery - critically necessary for any and all vehicle activity - that gets recharged by 12V parking canopies.
The electronic interface between 12V solar panels and 12V batteries is known as a "charge controller". A charge controller only costs 10 bucks.
hardsoft t1_jdmk3r9 wrote
The above confirms exactly what I already stated.
You can "jump" an EV with a dead 12V battery (happens to Teslas all the time) to turn it on, but you can't drive off the 12V battery.
Charging the 12V battery independently doesn't extend range in any meaningful sense.
I'm an electrical engineer and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdp56h3 wrote
Charging the 12V battery independently can keep you from needing a jump start (i.e., being stranded), which, as you yourself said, “happens all the time”.
hardsoft t1_jdp70bk wrote
On earlier models yes.
But to get this straight. Instead of solar farms powering homes we should add a bunch of infrastructure to parking lots to charge 12V batteries?
It's like you want to destroy the environment.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdp7n34 wrote
A $10 charge controller is not “a bunch of infrastructure”, and nobody ever said that the solar power from parking canopies would only be used for that purpose.
hardsoft t1_jdpd7jw wrote
Are these canopies made out of $10 charge controllers or are you seriously ignoring the actual additional infrastructure you're advocating for?
We need you on world problem think tanks to solve more of our problems... /s
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdpfea5 wrote
The $10 charge controllers are all that is specifically needed for the EV application. Other applications (e.g., powering nearby buildings) will need different additional infrastructure (“additional” meaning in addition to the canopies themselves).
hardsoft t1_jdpgv34 wrote
The comparison is to the proposed solar farm.
The parking lot canopies are additional infrastructure. You claimed savings on simpler, cheaper electronics that would charge 12V car batteries.
That makes no sense whatsoever. It's such a moronic idea that even if it existed no one would use it to charge their 12V batteries. The energy savings it would provide would be absolutely dwarfed by the environmental impact of it's manufacturing and construction.
But now you're saying it's also going to have traditional electrical infrastructure to feed power into the local grid and presumably do useful stuff like power homes and charge EV propulsion batteries, but that goes against the whole supposed savings by not needing any such electrical infrastructure...
I don't think you even know what you're talking about at this point.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdq3uys wrote
The original comment referenced “additional benefits” available with parking canopies beyond what a typical solar installation provides: shelter from weather, and EV charging at remote locations.
You falsely alleged that EV charging would require “a bunch of [additional] infrastructure” beyond the parking canopies themselves, and I proved that you were wrong.
As to your arrogance and inability to comprehend, those are your own personal problems for you to work on.
hardsoft t1_jdqf0q4 wrote
Haha. Charging 12V batteries is not an additional benefit. It's additional environmental destruction for no reason.
And again... 12V batteries aren't EV batteries. By definition.
> An electric vehicle battery (EVB, also known as a traction battery) is a rechargeable battery used to power the electric motors of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) or hybrid electric vehicle (HEV).
> Electric vehicle batteries differ from starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries, as they are typically lithium-ion batteries that are designed for high power-to-weight ratio, specific energy and energy density; smaller, lighter batteries are desirable because they reduce the weight of the vehicle and therefore ...
EV charging is universally recognized as charging the EV battery. You don't get to invent your own language because you're too insecure to admit you're wrong.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_jdqf1me wrote
[Electric vehicle battery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery#:~:text=Electric vehicle batteries differ from,of the vehicle and therefore)
>An electric vehicle battery (EVB, also known as a traction battery) is a rechargeable battery used to power the electric motors of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) or hybrid electric vehicle (HEV). Electric vehicle batteries differ from starting, lighting, and ignition (SLI) batteries, as they are typically lithium-ion batteries that are designed for high power-to-weight ratio, specific energy and energy density; smaller, lighter batteries are desirable because they reduce the weight of the vehicle and therefore improve its performance.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdqqpmd wrote
As previously explained,
> You can't start an EV (i.e., make it run) or operate an EV (all the 100+ ECUs - Electronic Control Units - run only on 12V current) without 12V battery power..
The 12V battery inside an EV is indeed an EV battery, and charging it is by definition EV charging.
hardsoft t1_jdqzb11 wrote
EV charging is charging the EV battery. And 12V batteries aren't EV batteries. They're used in ICE vehicles as well. Their name doesn't change depending on use...
Or please provide a reference to charging the 12V battery inside an EV (exclusively) as being referred to as "EV charging". Even colloquial references like from auto reviews in Car and Driver or Motor Trend would be acceptable.
Along with an explanation for why you included "EV" instead on just "vehicle charging" (as all vehicles have low voltage battery systems).
Otherwise we can just acknowledge you're a troll using unconventional and disingenuous language because you're too insecure to admit you're wrong.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdr04jn wrote
Any battery inside an EV and crucial for its operation is, by definition, an EV battery.
As you correctly point out, ICE vehicles can also charge their 12V batteries using the same system.
> Advance Auto Parts, a leading automotive aftermarket parts retailer, today announced the introduction of DieHard EV with xEV by Clarios, becoming the first auto parts retailer to sell 12-volt batteries designed specifically for hybrid and electric vehicles. Advance continues to drive innovation and expand its robust parts assortment with DieHard EV, which is the latest offering of its tens-of-thousands of hybrid and electric vehicle parts already available. DieHard EV is available exclusively at Advance stores, participating Carquest stores and advanceautoparts.com. Advance also provides free battery testing and installation of DieHard EV and other batteries at its retail locations.
>
> DieHard EV batteries are an advanced, low-voltage technology designed to provide superior reliability, durability and safety for all hybrid and electric vehicles, which place more demand on their low-voltage batteries. To address this, DieHard EV batteries offer 30 percent more cycling vs. standard AGM batteries and provides stable performance from day one through end of life. Additionally, their robust construction helps assure critical safety functions like brakes, steering and lighting remain operational during an emergency.
hardsoft t1_jdr173o wrote
Again, please provide a reference to charging the 12V battery inside an EV (exclusively) as being referred to as "EV charging". Even colloquial references like from auto reviews in Car and Driver or Motor Trend would be acceptable.
Along with an explanation for why you included "EV" instead on just "vehicle charging" (as all vehicles have low voltage battery systems).
Otherwise we can just acknowledge you're a troll using unconventional and disingenuous language because you're too insecure to admit you're wrong.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdr3l72 wrote
I've proven that the 12V battery inside an EV is in fact an EV battery. Charging an EV battery is, by definition, EV charging. You are wrong and you're too stubborn to admit it.
hardsoft t1_jdr476r wrote
Another potential source of references, more in line with your specific example here, would be from restaurants, shopping centers, rest stops, etc, advertising free "EV charging" for customers, with that being a service to exclusively charge the 12V battery.
Surely if you're not the only human on the planet using this language it's easy to find a single reference.
scintilist t1_jdnub71 wrote
If its any consolation, you can see on a satellite view (google maps for example) that the entire project area has had extensive logging within the past few years, so at least its not old growth or even mature second growth forest they will be clearing.
GraniteGeekNH t1_jdmtk25 wrote
Yes they should - I hope you're badgering your town and state officials to get them to support this! If voters don't demand it, it will be much slower to happen.
sphennings t1_jdkwesl wrote
As someone local to Old Gilsum Road I'm going personally feel the impact of loosing those woods. The whole region benefits from the amount of contiguous woodlands around the ridge. It's a shame that I won't be able to take my kids through those woods.
I appreciate the benefits of solar but every time I see the woods of my youth getting clear cut it leaves an ill taste in my mouth.
Big projects like this are easy for people in Boston to fund. They aren't loosing anything. Installing solar over a parking lot is far more complicated and more expensive. I can see why they would want to avoid that when undeveloped land is cheaper out this way.
The great thing about solar is that it can be put anywhere there's sun. I wish that would more often result in something other than rural land getting cleared in the name of environmentalism or progress.
SmithAndForge t1_jdvdvj6 wrote
They allegedly encourage communication with the community, maybe it would be a good idea to get in touch and voice your concerns?
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdl0pdp wrote
Researchers: Floating solar panels could provide over a third of global electricity
> The cost of solar power has dropped dramatically over the past decade, making it the cheapest source of electricity in much of the world. Clearly, that can mean cheaper power. But it also means that we can potentially install panels in places that would otherwise be too expensive and still produce power profitably.
>
> One of the more intriguing options is to place the panels above artificial bodies of water, either floating or suspended on cables. While more expensive than land-based installs, this creates a win-win: the panels limit the evaporation of water, and the water cools the panels, allowing them to operate more efficiently in warm climates.
>
> While the potential of floating solar has been examined in a number of places, a group of researchers has now done a global analysis and find that it's huge. Even if we limit installs to a fraction of the surface of existing reservoirs, floating panels could generate nearly 10,000 TeraWatt-hours per year, while keeping over 100 cubic kilometers of water from evaporating.
>
> Obviously, that potential is not evenly distributed, with countries like Canada and the Nordics getting less sun exposure to benefit from. The biggest winner in floating solar would be the US, which has the potential for 1,900 TWh under the 30/30 limitations. The US is using about 3,900 TWh a year, so that works out to be just under half its electricity consumption.
Abstract
Growing global energy use and the adoption of sustainability goals to limit carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are increasing the demand for clean energy, including solar. Floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems on reservoirs are advantageous over traditional ground-mounted solar systems in terms of land conservation, efficiency improvement and water loss reduction. Here, based on multiple reservoir databases and a realistic climate-driven photovoltaic system simulation, we estimate the practical potential electricity generation for FPV systems with a 30% coverage on 114,555 global reservoirs is 9,434 ± 29 TWh yr−1. Considering the proximity of most reservoirs to population centres and the potential to develop dedicated local power systems, we find that 6,256 communities and/or cities in 124 countries, including 154 metropolises, could be self-sufficient with local FPV plants. Also beneficial to FPV worldwide is that the reduced annual evaporation could conserve 106 ± 1 km3 of water. Our analysis points to the huge potential of FPV systems on reservoirs, but additional studies are needed to assess the potential long-term consequences of large systems.
sphennings t1_jdlxcks wrote
Cool paper bro. Not sure how it's relevant.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm5aa1 wrote
> The great thing about solar is that it can be put anywhere there's sun. I wish that would more often result in something other than rural land getting cleared in the name of environmentalism or progress.
With floating solar, no rural land would be cleared. Floating solar could be done at Goose Pond, which is very close to the planned location of Keene Meadow Solar. The primary downside is the higher installation cost for floating solar, though it would still be cost-effective.
sphennings t1_jdm68h5 wrote
Unless I see a modified plan from someone officially associated with the project this isn't relevant.
It also does nothing to address my concerns of destroying rural land to turn it into solar farms instead of converting unproductive urban and suburban strip malls and parking lots to a more productive use.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm8lpx wrote
OK NIMBY
b1ack1323 t1_jdmk6tl wrote
Wait so people saying, using already cleared land, even if it is closer to their house are NIMBYs?
You're pretty dumb.
NHGuy t1_jdmluj1 wrote
Yes, and that's valid
OkBody2811 t1_jdnuhh6 wrote
Really? Many of us here are for solar. Are you familiar with the area they want to put this array?
No clearly not.
The area they want to put it is a highly used recreational area, and one of the larger wooded areas in Keene. It will be a big loss to have this put there. There are many other areas this could be installed wooded or not. Hell, I’ve got acreage they could use.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnybld wrote
You do realize that Keene Meadow Solar is to be built on private property which you and others have absolutely no legal right to use, recreationally or otherwise, do you not?
> The Keene Meadow Solar Station will be located on privately owned properties
OkBody2811 t1_jdnzfke wrote
You do realize that locals are allowed to have a view on this, do you not
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo2r8q wrote
Sure, but it's not your property.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnwntv wrote
The Greater Goose Pond Forest, to the west of Old Gilsum Road and Keene Meadow Solar, and the very large forest to the north of both Goose Pond and Keene Meadow Solar, provide abundant space for hiking and recreation.
You can contact the company to volunteer your acreage here.
OkBody2811 t1_jdnyfsx wrote
Exactly, and if they build this they will have to rewrite this statement to PROVIDED abundant space. And if by volunteer my space they mean pay me prime value I will “volunteer” it.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo3369 wrote
The owner(s) of the land already scheduled for use are apparently already happy with the deal; if you contact the company, you might be able to join it.
sphennings t1_jdmfx66 wrote
Nice ad-hominem.
Re-read what I wrote. I'm well aware of the reasons for this project but I am sad that it is happening.
The economics don't work for putting solar panels over parking lots. They also don't work for putting them in ponds and lakes.
Regardless of my stance on this project it isn't a water installation. I strongly suspect that will not change because I expressed my fefes on Reddit. Linking to how solar could be installed on water is in no way relevant to this particular installation.
Cantide756 t1_jdmihyd wrote
Covering a pond or lake seems like the worst gimmick to make a dead body of water
sphennings t1_jdmit9y wrote
I completely agree.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmt8sr wrote
As the scientific paper clearly states, floating solar limits itself to "30% coverage" of the water's surface. This eliminates ecosystem effects.
sphennings t1_jdnb6ft wrote
This isnt an aquatic installation.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnkvsq wrote
You do realize that you were replying to a comment regarding aquatic installations, do you not?
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdms4jd wrote
As already explained, floating solar limits itself to "30% coverage" of the water's surface. This eliminates ecosystem effects.
Cantide756 t1_jdmu1wu wrote
Removing 30% of the energy input of an ecological system? Reducing the base of the doors chain by now than a quarter? Doesn't quite track
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmvc9k wrote
Yes it does. Read the scientific paper.
Cantide756 t1_jdn0rxc wrote
Have their been any replicated studies? Because the overall math doesn't track. One scientific paper does not equal scientific proof. Has there been studies monitoring the bodies of water with systems like this installed for longer periods? Are these individually engineered for the environment they will be left in? What happens when they are cheap hazmat panels and they fall into the water? Can they be retrieved if they sink into muck?
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnnbfk wrote
> FUD stands for “fear, uncertainty, and doubt.” It’s a communication tactic used to influence people towards having a negative perception of something, generally through deliberate misinformation or inciting fear. Historically, FUD has also been used to mean “fear, uncertainty, and disinformation,” which has essentially the same meaning as its current iteration.
Cantide756 t1_jdnpnz8 wrote
So my questions are "fake news"? Got it.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnufc1 wrote
You're inciting fear instead of citing evidence.
Cantide756 t1_jdo033u wrote
I'm asking legit questions, not putting forth conspiracy theory. Quick easy solutions are what got this mess started to begin with.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo2n5j wrote
OK, do your own research and cite your own evidence then.
Cantide756 t1_jdoets2 wrote
If I had time I would. Closest I have is accidental, with my 75g aquarium and losing 1 of my 4 grow lamps. But since it wasn't controlled, the results are speculative. It had been at equilibrium for 3 years after 5 of trying to reach balance. All that work thrown out of whack and ended when the algae and plants weren't able to produce more than they were fed upon. They died out, and then the tank starved from the bottom up. Can it be transferred to scale? Probably not. But cutting out energy from a system will not have zero effect, it just can't.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdoiizh wrote
I'm an aquarist (55g) myself. Adding younger, hungrier fish, or suffering micro-organism invasions, or chemistry fluctuations, can all cause the effects you describe.
The question is not whether changes in solar energy have effects, but rather whether or not these effects will be adapted to such that the lake remains healthy.
This is precisely what this multi-year (2020 – 2023) UCF / US DoE study across four existing floating photovoltaic system installations within three Köppean climate regions is currently documenting: "Harmful algae growth, a nutrient pollutant, is a costly nuisance for water bodies. It clogs pumps, blocks filters, and produces odors. It is also linked to severe illness and death in animals and humans. Floating solar systems may significantly reduce light exposure and lower water temperatures, thereby minimizing algae growth."
Cantide756 t1_jdoj9iv wrote
After I reached equilibrium I sealed the tank. Only input was light and an external heat source. Maybe some sloshing around from a magnet scrubber
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdokn9w wrote
Tanks are shaped in certain ways precisely in order to ensure a water surface which permits sufficient interactions with the atmosphere, enabling oxygen and CO2 exchanges etc. If you seal off the tank, this can no longer happen. Death would actually be the expected result of doing that.
Cantide756 t1_jdp0fnq wrote
It lasted 3 years.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdp43zu wrote
Consider yourself very lucky then.
b1ack1323 t1_jdmjgn6 wrote
Just put them over parking lots which will save on plowing too...
piscatator t1_jdm42xt wrote
Would I prefer it if this project was not cutting down trees, absolutely. Ideally most large solar arrays in NH would be built in land that was already in “use”. However I also think about where our current power comes from and that is natural gas. Natural gas extraction can lead to contaminated water and is very carbon intensive. The same goes for oil. NH uses both but never has to deal with the environmental impact of these industries. Coal is even worse. If NH is going to start producing more of it’s own energy locally there will be some impact. Now the good thing about a solar project is that if it becomes obsolete in the future it can be disassembled and the land is not irreparably damaged. Today when you turn on your lights more than likely the power is coming from natural gas and sometimes coal. The communities where that gas and coal were extracted have been impacted by environmental damage that no one reading this will live long enough to see remediated.
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_jdk1i6w wrote
So is this already a cleared area or are they cutting down trees?
DigTreasure t1_jdmg7eu wrote
It's been clear cut several times thought out the centuries. 1700s for the king. 1830s for sheep farming. Late 1880s for materials. Burned down after the hurricane of 1938. Logged throughout the 20th century. And now will be cleared again for solar. It's about 90% white pine in there. Nothing too special.
BigMax t1_jdkyfmy wrote
Solar saves a LOT more carbon from being used than the same land area of trees could ever sequester. It’s a very big net win for the environment, even if there is a bit of an odd feeling at first glance since land does get cleared.
b1ack1323 t1_jdmk23w wrote
It's all logging roads and trails right now. Environmentally it is net positive but parking lots would be my preference.
GraniteGeekNH t1_jdmtp3m wrote
Article says it has been logged in the past. Not some pristine forest.
diabolical_fuk t1_jdk82xu wrote
Does it matter?
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_jdk8gsh wrote
yes it does
Imaginary-Method-715 t1_jdkktst wrote
Not really if you think more
diabolical_fuk t1_jdk9ylx wrote
Why?
littleirishmaid t1_jdkhnw6 wrote
Kind of defeats the purpose, no?
diabolical_fuk t1_jdkl4n1 wrote
What purpose? The purpose seems to bring clean affordable energy to new Hampshire at a rate lower than eversource. And the area was previously used to harvest trees.
littleirishmaid t1_jdknbcr wrote
Deforestation. What takes in CO2?
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdkry87 wrote
> "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"
littleirishmaid t1_jdlwn23 wrote
Destroying nature to save nature.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_jdlps5m wrote
I just laugh at how it ‘will create jobs’ . Sure for the 1 year of construction. After that, it’s pretty much low maintenance. The worthless media we have now doesn’t question these statements, they just parrot the proponents lies.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdkq635 wrote
> Glenvale Solar, a Boston-based company, is planning to install a 240-acre solar installation in Keene near Goose Pond, with construction beginning in 2026. According to the project proposal, which Glenvale submitted to Keene’s Conservation Commission, the Keene Meadow Solar Station will be located on privately owned land.
>
> "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"
TheCloudBoy t1_jdkvqwe wrote
So let's do some math here for those curious (as am I) about this rather lavish projection:
The average home electricity usage amounts to ~886 kWh/month, so this array is expected to generate 14.40 GWh/month. The report cites 50 MW of generation daily, which is laughably small compared to the next smallest renewables generation source (wood burning at 204 MW) in NE ISO's portfolio. And we haven't even discussed the impact of weather in New England and its role in reducing this output during solar hours.
As PJM (the grid interconnect) has recently realized to our south, reality often paints a much different picture with renewables as of now compared to traditional thermal generation. Sure, the 50 MW of battery storage is rather attractive, but consider that wholly inadequate when we get into regimes where demand outpaces both generation and reserves in storage. This is probably going to be most noticeable in the winter.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdkzzq0 wrote
50 MW of generation daily is about 1500 MW / month, which is about 1/10th of the 14.40 GWh/month. Pretty sure there’s a missing zero there (i.e., 500 MW of generation daily). As for the weather, any energy generation figure for solar already incorporates weather considerations, so this is 500 MW daily, on average, with weather conditions already accounted for.
[deleted] t1_jdm03zy wrote
[deleted]
UncleRicosWig t1_jdm7sbm wrote
Just as I suspected. Thanks for doing the math. We have plenty of trees to generate today wood burning power
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmubpd wrote
> wood burning
-
Burning wood releases more CO2 than gas, oil and even coal for the same amount of heat
-
Danish and Australian research highlights that home wood burning also produces methane. This is a powerful global heating gas and further skews the balance away from climate neutrality.
-
The biggest health threat from wood smoke comes from fine particles (also called particulate matter). They are small enough to enter the lungs where they can cause bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, or other serious respiratory diseases. Fine particles can also aggravate chronic heart and lung diseases and are linked to premature deaths in people with these chronic conditions.
-
Domestic wood burning is now the single largest contributor to fine particle pollution in the UK. These particles can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease. The 8% of homes that do burn wood or coal have become one of the largest sources of particle pollution in the UK, greater than the exhaust from traffic.
UncleRicosWig t1_jdnabpm wrote
Ya I know but we have plenty of wood resources
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnl1lg wrote
We also have plenty of nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they need to be launched.
UncleRicosWig t1_jdnltqh wrote
Well those kill a lot of people in a short amount of time…. Not sure where you’re going with that analogy
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnnix3 wrote
Please refer to my prior comment explaining the negative effects of wood burning
GraniteGeekNH t1_jdmu4ew wrote
Wood burning power - electricity only, sending the waste heat into the atmosphere - hasn't worked in NH; it costs a fortune and the environmental benefits are surprisingly limited.
Combined heat and power, when you burn wood for electricity and also make use of the heat for bldgs, etc., makes a lot of sense. The drawback is that it's more location-specific, since it's hard to move heat.
Imaskeet t1_jdmak63 wrote
So should we expect to see more and more of this? I worry about our forests and landscape getting torn up like for more and more of these projects like they're doing in MA.
TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo4h00 wrote
> According to the proposal, Glenvale Solar is working with local experts to ensure the project meets the highest standards of stormwater management and minimizes impacts to natural resources. The project team is also consulting with the N.H. Fish and Game Department to conduct a wildlife habitat assessment of the proposed site.
>
> Glenvale Solar chose the proposed project site through an extensive review of its characteristics — its proximity to two transmission corridors, minimal visual impact, low to moderate sloping terrain and no known presence of threatened species—that are compatible with solar development, the proposal states.
>
> Locals currently use the proposed sites for hiking, biking and snowmobiling, and they have been used in the past for timber harvesting. Jackson said Glenvale Solar will coordinate with the community to minimize any disruptions.
>
> “We would like to minimize our impact to this network by maintaining connectivity or, if that is unavoidable, working with the community to understand where other trails could be improved or created,” Jackson said.
Internal_Ring_121 t1_jdougd0 wrote
Idk if it’s just because of the depression I was going through when I went to Keene State but from I can remember Keene is one of the gloomiest towns.
hardsoft t1_jdm8ro7 wrote
Pretty predictable how much push back this is getting.
Until we have fusion plants that can be installed in one story buildings or underground so not to impact anyone's view and within a 1/10th acre lot we're pretty doomed to continue using power sources that are far more detrimental to the environment.
CrunchyCrunch816 t1_jdm5i2m wrote
Leave the woods alone. Stop selling out to big city folks. There’s plenty of parking lot space. That’s not profitable enough though
Horse shit stinks
Imaginary-Method-715 t1_jdkkrk3 wrote
Keene got Sol
51stheFrank t1_jdkmmve wrote
I think there are much better places to do solar installs than clearing forests that (ideally) serve as carbon sinks. Malls, school parking lots (!) for example. Every public school should have parking canopies installed. it would keep cars cooler, shed snow and rain, and generate power for cities and towns.