New Hampshire's percentage of renewable energy falls by half from 1990 to 2006.

[NNadir]

In 1990, New Hampshire provided 9.2% of its electricity by non-hydro renewable means. In 2004, it provided less than 4.0%.

Even in absolute terms (as opposed to percentage terms) the amount of renewable energy produced in New Hampshire has fallen, from 1,137,722 Megawatt-hours to 946,165 Megawatt-hours.

Fossil fuel used in 2004 represented more than 47% of New Hampshire's electrical generation, lead by large increases in the use of natural gas. As recently as 2002, though, New Hampshire produced less than 30% of its electricity using fossil fuels. In that year, nuclear electricity, the single reactor operating at Seabrook, produced 58.7% of New Hampshire's electricity the highest in percentage terms, but not the highest in absolute terms. In absolute terms the reactor at Seabrook produced more than 10,000,000 megawatt-hours for the first time in 2004.

Renewable energy as a whole including hydroelectricity has been falling in New Hampshire. I have no idea why that is, by the way, I am only reporting the figures.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05nh.xls

Construction of the second nuclear reactor at Seabrook was stopped as the result of protests, and the last time I was there, the hulking rusting shell of the second reactor was still there. Had the reactor been completed it is easy to imagine that all of New Hampshire's electricity would have been provided by greenhouse gas minimized strategies.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I think it's probably tied to population growth.

Lots of growth in So. NH from people working in Massachusetts but living in NH due to no state income tax.

[NNadir]

2. Actually, if you look at it in real terms, the actual amount generated has fallen.

The EIA considers garbage incineration "renewable energy," so it is possible that they may have just shut down some trash burning plants.

I can't imagine that they have less wind and solar than they did in 1990, but I really don't know. Maybe someone from New Hampshire can tell us.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. the power produced at Seabrook isn't for NH consumption as

I understand it- most of our power comes from Canada.
There were some wood fired energy plants that I know have now closed down- concerns about the ash, and the kinds of emissions produced, along with a LOT of influx of people who want unlimited power, but reject things that interfere with the aesthetic 'view' or 'image' that living in NH means to them :nuke:

I'm a little antagonistic about the number of 'second, third, and fourth' vacation- homes that have been built here- houses that have every bell and whistle known to man (and more than this woman knew existed), floor-plans that make our barns- which were built in the 1830's for wintering several hundred sheep, two dozen milk cows, a team of horses, and hay to feed all these animals through our winters- look like 'cottages'. They use a fair amount of electricity and natural resources 52 weeks a year, and often are only actually OCCUPIED for one or two weeks per year at most.

There was a 'bio' energy plant in Hopkinton NH that closed, and one in the Claremont Area I believe- There are plans for a wind generator to be constructed in the..... Lempster/Croyden area- And I know of a few very small hydro/electric producers who produce enough energy for one home, and actually are able to sell the surplus to PSNH.

People fight 'unsightly' Cell towers on our mountains- I'd personally love to see some wind turbines put into place- but I can't imagine many communities having much luck with that- It took quite an effort to get the Lempster/Croyden wind project to be ok'd.

I'll try and find out more- I didn't realize we'd actually gone that far backwards.- The mills up to Berlin area that closed down might be a part of it- They might have powered some wood plants-
or maybe it is that we buy more power from Canada, and they rely on fossil fuels to a greater degree? I don't honestly know-

[Bluerthanblue]

4. This may explain why-

PSNH isn't supposed to make any power????--- or control any power plants??? whaaa?

have a read-



http://www.seacoastonline.com/2003news/03062003/opinion/16215.htm

[NNadir]

6. That's odd. n/t.

[NNadir]

5. Well thanks for your help. Closed mills would account for such a decrease.

I agree with you about the wind turbines, by the way.

Seabrook's power is fed into the grid. It's really, really hard to distinguish where the electrons go exactly. I suspect that Seabrook is important to Boston as well as Berlin. Personally they could build a reactor in my neighborhood and ship the power to PA, Delaware and New York. The air doesn't stop at the New Jersey border. The mercury that rains on my town comes from coal plants in Indiana and Ohio and even Michigan.

I love that Seabrook/Newburyport MA area. It's lovely. Seabrook unit 2 makes me a little sad though, because it was stopped during the time that I was anti-nuclear, so I feel a little twinge of responsibility.

Sigh...

The EIA percentages are based on energy generated in the state being examined though. It doesn't actually report where the energy is used, nor could it actually. In some sense it is an artificial construct since at any given time, the power may be exported or imported, depending on demand and capacity in specific locales.

[mainegreen]

7. A lot of the news lately seems to indicate NE is neglecting energy production.

Except for Maine. There was plenty of talk around here about ME leaving the NE electrical compact because we did not want to pay for the rest of NE's mistakes in this area.