Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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"

5

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.

0

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.

5

UncleRicosWig t1_jdm7sbm wrote

Just as I suspected. Thanks for doing the math. We have plenty of trees to generate today wood burning power

−3

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.

1

UncleRicosWig t1_jdnabpm wrote

Ya I know but we have plenty of wood resources

0

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnl1lg wrote

We also have plenty of nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they need to be launched.

1

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

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnnix3 wrote

Please refer to my prior comment explaining the negative effects of wood burning

1

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.

0