Is solar green?

[oilerlord]

Merriam-Webster is only one opinion..
There are many others that define Green somewhat differently. Expand your horizons, don't fit into the first box you find.

Merriam-Webster is a reference, not an opinion. That said, I have an open mind so took your advice to expand my horizons:

Cambridge:

"To do more to protect nature and the environment"

Pretty sure solar panels do that.

Oxford:

"(Of a product) not harmful to the environment"

The energy and materials used in the process may be considered harmful but the "product" is not.

MacMillan:

"Designed to protect the environment or to limit damage to the environment."

I may be way off base here...but pretty sure solar panels do that too.

[oilerlord]

It's more like someone that refuses to acknowledge what they believed for years was categorically incorrect, so they straw-man the conversation in the attempt save face. Goes to my previous point about Internet forums and the 98%/1%/1%. If asked if solar is green, 98% of the general public would probably answer "yes". The other 2% land here.

As for jumping on anyone, I'd recommend jumping on Merriam-Webster. I hear she's hot.

[Mike90250]

Merriam-Webster is only one opinion..
There are many others that define Green somewhat differently. Expand your horizons, don't fit into the first box you find.

[jflorey2]

I appreciate precise use of the English language, but does anyone else besides me see this as a bit pedantic ?

Yep. It's like someone here jumping all over someone else because he is talking about an AC outlet, claiming "it's only AC if there is alternating CURRENT, and there's no current if there is nothing plugged into it! You are WRONG to call it an AC outlet!"

[Sunking]

All Green is a Marketing Buzz Word that has no meaning, and means nothing.

[oilerlord]

I appreciate precise use of the English language, but does anyone else besides me see this as a bit pedantic ?

Unfortunately, the word "green" is bandied about, and comes with emotional baggage based on people's individual social and political values concerning the environment. Clearly the actual Merriam-Webster definition is breaking brains because thousands of posts on this forum have been now proven - wrong.

I figured the easiest way to answer the OP's question was to simply post the actual definition of the word instead of getting everyone's "take" on it.

[SunEagle]

Well I can use the same logic by saying I do not use any electrical power at night so I must be GREEN.

But IMO to get that "green" label the entire set of points needs to be met. Not just one or two.

[J.P.M.]

...in your opinion.

Mike, read the definition again. "Recyclable, biodegradable, OR nonpolluting". Keyword = "or" not "and". Also, uses the word "tending" and not an absolute such as "totally". As per Merriam-Webster's definition of green, all three qualities are not required, only one of them. For that reason, a solar panel is green because it tends to preserve environmental quality as by being nonpolluting.

I appreciate precise use of the English language, but does anyone else besides me see this as a bit pedantic ?

[oilerlord]

A gain in one field, and losses in 2 others, might make something neutral, but neutral is not the same as green.

...in your opinion.

Mike, read the definition again. "Recyclable, biodegradable, OR nonpolluting". Keyword = "or" not "and". Also, uses the word "tending" and not an absolute such as "totally". As per Merriam-Webster's definition of green, all three qualities are not required, only one of them. For that reason, a solar panel is green because it tends to preserve environmental quality as by being nonpolluting.

[Mike90250]

Tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)

A gain in one field, and losses in 2 others, might make something neutral, but neutral is not the same as green. There are many embedded environmental costs in a PV panel, from smelting the ore to extrude the aluminum frames, chemicals to make the insulators, adhesives, backsheets and then the silicon wafers, their chemical processing, it's all messy stuff. Only the final install looks "green". Once installed, in 30 years, the expected lifetime is reached, and most of the materials can be recycled, aluminum and glass reclaimed, plastic and adhesives burned, and other metals (copper leads) reclaimed, making the next set a bit more greener by using some recycled base materials.
It's like all the electric cars have a heavy footprint from the battery manufacturing. No good recycle process for the Lithium battery industry yet, mining raw materials seems to be the easiest, rather then trying to re-refine the old battery (unlike a lead-acid battery which is easily recycled to new batteries)

[oilerlord]

Actually I would love to find a Hummer Hybrid that runs on bio diesel fuel and electric. But I doubt anyone would make one.

I figure I will own an EV some day in the future. Maybe when I can justify the purchase but right now it would be an expense I could not afford.

I did a comparison on another forum about selling my old faithful Audi that had 100,000 miles on it, and was beginning to become a money pit. Compared was the cost of fuel & maintenance with the Audi vs my 2014 B-Class Electric that I bought used last month for about 60% off original MSRP (typical for most non-Tesla EV's). It turns out that excluding consumable items such as tires, brakes, wipers, lights, etc, I spent about $25,000 on the Audi. With no fuel, oil changes, timing belts, fuel pumps, the EV should cost ~$2,000 in electricity with near zero maintenance required (except for consumables mentioned). IF this EV lasts 100,000 miles, the car will nearly pay for itself.

For me, the car is fantastic, has more range than I need 99% of the time, and the total cost of ownership made sense. For others, perhaps not so much.

[SunEagle]

Also, one of my best friends drives a Hummer H2. It's a monster, and I think he's crazy to drive it. He thinks my EV with it's 100 mile range is crazy too. We laugh and make jokes about each other's cars yet, we're best friends, and appreciate that the each other's cars are "cool" in their own ways. Sadly, that sort of thing doesn't happen often on the Internet.

Actually I would love to find a Hummer Hybrid that runs on bio diesel fuel and electric. But I doubt anyone would make one.

I figure I will own an EV some day in the future. Maybe when I can justify the purchase but right now it would be an expense I could not afford.

[oilerlord]

Also, one of my best friends drives a Hummer H2. It's a monster, and I think he's crazy to drive it. He thinks my EV with it's 100 mile range is crazy too. We laugh and make jokes about each other's cars yet, we're best friends, and appreciate that the each other's cars are "cool" in their own ways. Sadly, that sort of thing doesn't happen often on the Internet.

[SunEagle]

I was a loss prevention course decades ago. One thing that stuck was the instructor (head of loss prevention) telling us that 98% of us are basically honest, 1% are totally honest, and 1% are totally dishonest. Regardless if the ratios are correct or not, I think the same is basically true of whatever "position" we take on the environment.

98% are basically concerned: "Wow, coral reefs in Australia are dying...geez, that's too bad."
1% are totally concerned: "Honey, pack your bags, I've quit my job and we're taking the kids out of school. Coral reefs in Australia are dying...we leave tomorrow"
1% aren't concerned at all: "Hey look, coral reefs in in Australia are turning white...cool!"

I'm in the 98%...concerned, but not nearly at the point where I'm giving up everything to ride a bike in Maui and smoke weed with the OP (though a week of that might be fun). The problem with Internet forums is that they seem to attract the extremist 2% of the population.

Very good explanation.

[oilerlord]

All very admirable actions on your part. I thank you for providing this information and agree with a lot of what you are doing.

Sometimes I find it hard to determine where someone is positioning themselves. There are way too many people that have been brainwashed into believing solar is the answer to all power generation. I am sorry if I lumped you into that category.

I was at a loss prevention course decades ago. One thing that stuck was the instructor (head of loss prevention) telling us that 98% of us are basically honest, 1% are totally honest, and 1% are totally dishonest. Regardless if the ratios are correct or not, I think the same is basically true of whatever "position" we take on the environment.

98% are basically concerned: "Wow, coral reefs in Australia are dying...geez, that's too bad."
1% are totally concerned: "Honey, pack your bags, I've quit my job and we're taking the kids out of school. Coral reefs in Australia are dying...we leave tomorrow"
1% aren't concerned at all: "Hey look, coral reefs in in Australia are turning white...cool!"

I'm in the 98%...concerned, but not nearly at the point where I'm giving up everything to ride a bike in Maui and smoke weed with the OP (though a week of that might be fun). The problem with Internet forums is that they seem to attract the extremist 2% of the population.