Every impact number Dyme publishes comes out of the same short calculation. This page shows the working, so you can check it rather than take it.
All of the figures below are the ones on our results page. Nothing here is a new claim. It is the arithmetic behind the claims already made, plus the assumptions that arithmetic rests on and the places where those assumptions could reasonably be argued with.
What we count, and at what stage
Capacity is reported at one of two stages and we try never to blur them.
Built and operating means the panels exist, are connected and are generating. That figure is 5.5 MW. Every emissions number we publish as current is derived from this and from nothing else.
Pipeline means contracted or in development and not yet generating. That is a further 20 MW. Pipeline capacity produces no electricity and avoids no emissions until it is commissioned, so it never enters a current figure. Where you see a number described as being at full pipeline, it is a projection of what the pipeline would add once built, and it should be read as a forecast.
The distinction matters more than it sounds. A platform can accumulate a large pipeline and a small operating base for years, and the honest way to report that is two numbers rather than one.
From megawatts to megawatt-hours: our solar capacity factor
Installed capacity is a rating, not an output. A 5.5 MW array does not produce 5.5 MWh every hour, because the sun is not always on it.
Our operating capacity produces about 7,807 MWh a year. Against a theoretical maximum of 5.5 MW running every hour of the year, that is a capacity factor of roughly 16 percent, which is an ordinary figure for fixed-tilt solar at these latitudes and one you can sanity-check against any published solar resource map.
If you want to test our numbers, this is the input to test first. Capacity factor is where optimism usually enters a renewable projection, and a figure much above 20 percent for fixed solar should prompt a question about tracking, location or wishful thinking.
From megawatt-hours to carbon: the grid emission factor
Generation avoids emissions only in proportion to what it displaces, so the second multiplication needs an emission factor for the grid the project feeds.
We use 0.757 tCO2 per MWh, which is the Combined Margin for 2023-24 published by India's Central Electricity Authority in version 20.0 of its CO2 Baseline Database. Combined Margin blends the operating margin, describing what generation is displaced today, with the build margin, describing what new capacity is deferred. It is the convention used in Clean Development Mechanism methodologies rather than a number we chose.
That gives 7,807 MWh multiplied by 0.757, or 5,910 tonnes of CO2 avoided a year.
Two honest caveats. A grid emission factor is an average, and the true displaced emissions in any given hour depend on what would otherwise have run in that hour. And the factor moves. The Central Electricity Authority published version 21.0 in November 2025, which added FY 2024-25 at 0.736 and left 2023-24 at the 0.757 we use, so the figure above is still the right one for the year it describes. As India's grid takes on more renewable generation the combined margin keeps falling, which means the same array avoids fewer tonnes on paper each year. That is the correct result rather than a problem to engineer around.
The 30-year lifetime carbon projection
Lifetime avoided emissions are the annual figure multiplied by an assumed operating life: 5,910 tonnes over 30 years, or 177,300 tonnes.
This is a projection and depends on three things holding for three decades. The panels keep producing, which they mostly do, with a slow annual degradation we have not modelled into the headline. The grid stays dirty enough for the displacement to be worth what we say, which it will not, per the point above. And the array stays in service.
Read the lifetime number as an order of magnitude rather than a forecast. The annual number is the one doing real work.
What the tree, home and football-field comparisons mean
Tonnes of CO2 mean very little to most readers, so we publish comparisons: roughly 271,000 mature trees, a number of football fields, homes powered.
These are translations, not additional achievements. The tree figure uses a standard absorption rate per mature tree per year, and dividing 5,910 tonnes by 271,000 trees gives about 22 kilograms per tree per year, which matches the published rate. No trees are planted, and nobody should add the trees to the tonnes. It is the same carbon, described twice.
The homes comparison works out at roughly 11 MWh per home per year, which reflects average household consumption in a high-consumption market rather than in the market where the electricity is generated. It is a scale illustration for the reader, and we would rather say so than let it read as a statement about which homes are being powered.
The football-field and Central Park figures are that same tree count expressed as ground area, about 9,600 fields or 15 Central Parks of mature forest. They change the unit and not the quantity.
What we don't claim: no offsets, no ownership, no realized savings
Three things, deliberately.
We do not claim offsets. Dyme funds new generating capacity. We do not purchase or retire carbon credits, and we do not describe a booking as carbon neutral on the strength of these projects. The distinction is the subject of what carbon neutral actually means on a corporate travel program, and it is the difference between paying for a reduction someone else made and causing one.
We do not claim the electricity as ours. The generation belongs to the site. Under the FTC Green Guides a marketer that generates renewable electricity and sells the certificates for it may not then represent that it uses renewable energy, and the cleanest way to stay well clear of that line is to describe what we fund rather than what we consume.
We do not present projected savings as realized. Electricity cost savings to the sites we fund are modelled from tariffs and generation, not collected from invoices, and they are labelled as projected wherever they appear.
If you want to check any of this, the underlying figures are on the results page and the emission factor is published by the Central Electricity Authority. Anyone evaluating a travel provider's climate claims will find the questions worth asking set out in how to evaluate climate-impact reporting from a travel-benefit provider.
FAQ: our impact methodology
Which emission factor do you use, and why that one?＋
0.757 tCO2 per MWh, the Combined Margin for 2023-24 published by India's Central Electricity Authority in version 20.0 of its CO2 Baseline Database. Combined Margin is the convention in Clean Development Mechanism methodologies, blending what generation is displaced now with what new capacity is deferred. Version 21.0 was published in November 2025 and the factor is reviewed against each release.
Why is your capacity factor only about 16 percent?＋
Because installed capacity is a rating rather than an output, and the sun is not always on the panels. Around 16 percent is ordinary for fixed-tilt solar at these latitudes. It is also the input most worth checking in anyone's renewable projection, since a figure much above 20 percent for fixed solar needs explaining.
Does the tree comparison mean trees are planted?＋
No. It is a translation of the same tonnes into a unit people can picture. Dividing our annual avoided emissions by the tree figure gives about 22 kilograms per tree per year, which matches the standard published absorption rate. No trees are planted, so the trees and the tonnes are one quantity rather than two.
Do you sell carbon credits or offsets?＋
No. Dyme funds new generating capacity rather than purchasing or retiring credits, and we do not describe a booking as carbon neutral on the strength of these projects. We also do not represent the electricity as powering Dyme, which keeps us well clear of the line the FTC Green Guides draw around renewable energy claims.
Are the electricity cost savings you publish actual or projected?＋
Projected. They are modelled from generation and local tariffs rather than collected from invoices, and they are labelled as projected wherever they appear. Treat them as a scale estimate rather than a measured result.
