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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments