Apr282008
Alternative energy in New Hampshire: Not so great
Filed under Uncategorized by david brooks at 2:09 pm
As I noted in an earlier post, I (and staff writer Joe Cote) had a set of stories in the Sunday Telegraph about alternative electricity production in New Hampshire, or lack thereof. Here’s the relevant chunk of information:
Electricity production capacity in New Hampshire in 2007, in megawatts, by fuel source:
Nuclear…………….1,222
Natural Gas……..1,146
Coal……………………565
Oil……………………….481
Hydro………………….462
Other…………………..100 (Includes alternative energy sources)
(This is capacity in kilowatts, not output over time in kilowatt-hours. The latter chart, which is too complicated to compile for anything later than 2005, would make alternative energy look even worse, since solar/wind and hydro plants don’t run as often as nuclear, oil, and gas plants.)
This is my pretty pessimistic story. This is Joe’s story profiling a couple of local folks who have installed alternative energy. This is my attempt to inform people of tax incentives.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I wonder if wood heating is considered under alternative energy sources? Burning 3 to 4 cords a year offsets a lot of oil or electricity.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
This article strictly concerns electricity production, not electricity-use reduction - for many people, insulation will do more to reduce “carbon footprint” than all the gee-whiz machines in the world.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I wonder if wood heating is considered under alternative energy sources? Burning 3 to 4 cords a year offsets a lot of oil or electricity.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
This article strictly concerns electricity production, not electricity-use reduction - for many people, insulation will do more to reduce “carbon footprint” than all the gee-whiz machines in the world.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:20 am
20 years ago my father was excited about solar panel shingles, but figured he couldn't wait for them to do the barn roof. Now he is frustrated because again he would like to do it, but the product is still a prototype. I would have loved to use the theoretical vinal siding that has solar cell covering, again, still theoretical after 10 years. We use 5-700 kw / month. A few, small, alt. devices would make a huge dent. But they need to come off the drawing board and go into production. Whose lifetime?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:20 am
20 years ago my father was excited about solar panel shingles, but figured he couldn’t wait for them to do the barn roof. Now he is frustrated because again he would like to do it, but the product is still a prototype. I would have loved to use the theoretical vinal siding that has solar cell covering, again, still theoretical after 10 years. We use 5-700 kw / month. A few, small, alt. devices would make a huge dent. But they need to come off the drawing board and go into production. Whose lifetime?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:16 am
David,
If people are really serious about low impact engergy than we would stop wasting our time with passive sources of solar energy and go right to the source–the atom.
Nuclear power is essentially zero emisssions, except for warm water. Yes, you do need to dispose of the fuel rods, but they are in a contained space as opposed to spewing into the atmosphere.
Let's stop pretending these alternative sources are going to save the day for us. Ethanol is starving the third world and driving up prices at home, hydrogen is just a way to transport energy that needs to be created elsewhere. You would have to cut down huge swaths of vegetation to have enough solor panels to make a difference (imagine the runoff issues), etc. etc.
So far most of the coverage of alternative energy is not discussing actual viable alternatives.
Locally, the biggest lost opportunity of the last energy crisis was that we never finished the second reactor at Seabrook. According to your chart we could have “weened” ourselves from all the coal and oil and most hydro powered sources of enegy with that one reactor. The Bow plant could have been closed years ago.
Let's get serious; even France has seen the “light” on nuclear power.
For more read:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Ar...
Eric
May 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
David,
If people are really serious about low impact engergy than we would stop wasting our time with passive sources of solar energy and go right to the source–the atom.
Nuclear power is essentially zero emisssions, except for warm water. Yes, you do need to dispose of the fuel rods, but they are in a contained space as opposed to spewing into the atmosphere.
Let’s stop pretending these alternative sources are going to save the day for us. Ethanol is starving the third world and driving up prices at home, hydrogen is just a way to transport energy that needs to be created elsewhere. You would have to cut down huge swaths of vegetation to have enough solor panels to make a difference (imagine the runoff issues), etc. etc.
So far most of the coverage of alternative energy is not discussing actual viable alternatives.
Locally, the biggest lost opportunity of the last energy crisis was that we never finished the second reactor at Seabrook. According to your chart we could have “weened” ourselves from all the coal and oil and most hydro powered sources of enegy with that one reactor. The Bow plant could have been closed years ago.
Let’s get serious; even France has seen the “light” on nuclear power.
For more read:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/007jlljc.asp
Eric