Is solar green?

[DanKegel]

As I said before I really don't care if the carbon output is cut or not. I just like trees and think cutting them down to increase solar production is short sited and greedy.

I don't think you have to cut down trees to put up solar and wind farms.

[DanKegel]

So you don't believe that the increase of RE % in CA has anything to do with the increase of your electric power generation costs? Really!!!!

? Sure, there's an upfront cost to wind and solar. Lower ongoing costs, though.

I think the question was about whether they were good for the environment, though, not about cost.

[SunEagle]

I don't think you have to cut down trees to put up solar and wind farms.

Maybe in most areas you do not have to touch the tress to get good sunlight or enough wind to generate power. But for a lot of home owners and even some of the Community Solar Farms I have read about trees seem to take a back seat because the only land they can use has trees on it or the few trees on someones property blocks a portion of the sunlight getting to their rooftop array.

IMO cutting trees that are not a danger to a home (from falling down on it) would be a crime (trimming is ok) just to get a few more kWh production out of a solar pv system.

[SunEagle]

? Sure, there's an upfront cost to wind and solar. Lower ongoing costs, though.

I think the question was about whether they were good for the environment, though, not about cost.

The lowest costing fuel for power generation for many years was coal. Now it is not because of it's bad rep and the lower (for now) cost of natural gas.

If every one was so concerned with the environment then they should be cutting their power usage in half as well as start riding bicycles and not any type of fossil or electric powered vehicle. But since there seems to be more electric usage by home solar owners and many more cars on the road then 10 years ago I would say people don't really care about the environment as you would hope they do.

[Sunking]

That's a bit overstated. Yes, there will be days with zero wind and zero solar generation. Yes, that means we need to keep natural gas power plants around to handle days like that..

Then you are a fool and have taken the bait hook line and sinker. If you are not a Fool, then you are part of the conspiracy. Which is it? You don't keep the plants around for those days, you keep them online, hot and generating 24 x 7 x 365. That 33 to 35% importing electricity is from other states keeping the generators running because you morons refuse to build the capacity with failed energy policy. Some day real soon AZ, NV, OR, and WA are going to say there is no more and you go dark. Not a damn thing you can do to stop it. It is to late, you are to far behind to catch up. I will laugh when it happens.

[Sunking]

The lowest costing fuel for power generation for many years was coal. Now it is not because of it's bad rep and the lower (for now) cost of natural gas..

It is two fold. Yes NG is cheaper than it ever has been. But as Obama promised he would bankrupt the Coal Industry via the Unemployment Prevention Agency and punish US citizens with much higher electricity cost. Just ask WV and WY what they think of Obama.

[DanKegel]

I certainly didn't have to cut down any trees to put solar on my roof, either time. That sounds like a theoretical worry.

As for wind -- the only windpower I'm aware of that's cost-effective is large utility-scale wind turbines (payback time for small ones looks pretty long).
Putting a tall wind turbine in a forested area would indeed displace a few trees. Environmental regulations might require the operator to plant more trees elsewhere to compensate.

How do you feel about the trees lost to mountaintop removal coal mining? I suspect that kills off quite a few more trees than a wind farm.

[DanKegel]

The lowest costing fuel for power generation for many years was coal. Now it is not because of it's bad rep and the lower (for now) cost of natural gas.

Well, that and the fact that coal generates so much CO2, and the fact that CO2 emissions are melting the icecaps.

If every one was so concerned with the environment then they should be cutting their power usage in half

That's what California is doing. Other states are welcome to follow its example.

[SunEagle]

I certainly didn't have to cut down any trees to put solar on my roof, either time. That sounds like a theoretical worry.

As for wind -- the only windpower I'm aware of that's cost-effective is large utility-scale wind turbines (payback time for small ones looks pretty long).
Putting a tall wind turbine in a forested area would indeed displace a few trees. Environmental regulations might require the operator to plant more trees elsewhere to compensate.

How do you feel about the trees lost to mountaintop removal coal mining? I suspect that kills off quite a few more trees than a wind farm.

I never said I like how coal is mined if it destroys the country side. Some of the open mines are in areas that have very little vegetation just like many of the large solar arrays are located in the desert. Both ways can find ways to responsibly use the land.

Yet like mountain top coal mining removing a forest would be wrong just like removing trees to install a solar array or wind farm. Neither is a good practice.

Some places are perfect for solar, wind , hydro and mining of fossil fuel. But not all places can say that.

[SunEagle]

Well, that and the fact that coal generates so much CO2, and the fact that CO2 emissions are melting the icecaps.



That's what California is doing. Other states are welcome to follow its example.

Maybe that is what is melting the ice caps and maybe not.

As for letting other states follow in the footsteps of CA concerning RE, I would say that is a fools walk. As for CA reducing their power consumption that is a topic that can be discussed and back by data that is not necessarily true throughout the state.

[DanKegel]

Maybe (greenhouse gas emissions) is what is melting the ice caps and maybe not.

The science is pretty clear on that, and as has been shown recently, the scientific community's consensus on that point is strong. I'd be happy to provide that evidence again if you like.

As for CA reducing their power consumption that is a topic that can be discussed and back by data that is not necessarily true throughout the state.

If you're interested in the topic, "Deconstructing the `Rosenfeld Curve': The Problem with Energy Intensities" estimated that about a third of the difference in power consumption between California and the rest of the US was due to efficiency policies. That's big enough to be worth paying attention to, I think.

[BrentEMarvin]

I thought that solar energy is cleaner then electricity power. If I live in a sunny area then what will you say? I have installed solar light in my home and it reduces my electricity bill. But I don't know if I install solar panels on my roof then how does it work?

[SunEagle]

The science is pretty clear on that, and as has been shown recently, the scientific community's consensus on that point is strong. I'd be happy to provide that evidence again if you like.



If you're interested in the topic, "Deconstructing the `Rosenfeld Curve': The Problem with Energy Intensities" estimated that about a third of the difference in power consumption between California and the rest of the US was due to efficiency policies. That's big enough to be worth paying attention to, I think.

You forget you are talking to an "unbeliever" of the carbon is bad craze.

I believe the number of cars in CA has been increasing over that past few years and even if there are more EV's, they seem to want to charge them at night during supper low rates, they certainly are not getting the electricity from solar.

[SunEagle]

I thought that solar energy is cleaner then electricity power. If I live in a sunny area then what will you say? I have installed solar light in my home and it reduces my electricity bill. But I don't know if I install solar panels on my roof then how does it work?

Solar energy is a pretty clean power source. The problem is when the sun isn't shining then anyone with a solar pv system is now purchasing their power from the grid. That power could be coming from other RE (wind & water) or Nuclear (zero carbon output) but for most it comes from fossil fuel burning generating plants.

So with a solar pv system you should be using less of the grid during the day time but at night your power can come from a lot of sources and most produce carbon dioxide, which does not bother me, but goes against people who want to get their power from only "green" or "clean" sources.

Even if you "captured" excess electricity you generated during the day but did not use and put it into some type of "energy storage" system so it could be used at night, most if not all high energy storage systems (like batteries) are not clean in any way. Sort of a predicament if you want to be "clean" but still want to run all of your loads at night.

[jflorey2]

You forget you are talking to an "unbeliever" of the carbon is bad craze.

Carbon isn't bad. We wouldn't have any trees if not for CO2 in the air. It just has effects. Whether they are good or bad for you depends on who you are and where you live. Climate change is going to be bad for people on the coast in India, but for a farmer in Saskatchewan? He might like the effects.

I believe the number of cars in CA has been increasing over that past few years and even if there are more EV's, they seem to want to charge them at night during supper low rates, they certainly are not getting the electricity from solar.

That's because utilities have been advocating very strongly that EV owners do that, due to their overgeneration at night. Once enough solar generation is installed that the duck curve problem becomes serious, you'll see that reverse itself.