Is solar green?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SunEagle]

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.

Nevertheless, on average, solar and wind generation will allow us to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. The energy payback time of monocrystalline solar panels was recently estimated as 1 to 4 years ( see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6403211500146X and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../pip.2548/full ), and its lifetime co2 emissions were recently estimated at 38 grams co2 per kWh ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...27024813004455 ) -- far less than even natural gas generation.

Nuclear power plants could be part of the solution, too. The US hasn't had good luck getting those built on time or under budget, though; I still remember when Washington State cancelled a few. That was very expensive.

As for California -- what's wrong there? We've reduced our energy use, our economy is in good shape (the very first page I looked at on the subject, http://www.businessinsider.com/state...gs-2014-8?op=1, rated California's economy #2 out of all states in 2014), and we're phasing out imported coal-fired energy over the next few years. If CAISO's expansion plans work out, we may end up exporting energy fairly often, even.

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!!!!

[SunEagle]

SunEagle, seems like you're arguing "unless it's perfect, it's worthless". If we were to power the grid mostly from solar and wind when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, that'd cut our carbon generation quite a bit, don't you think?

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.

[DanKegel]

The very second a cloud passes over, or the wind slows for a moment and you have a instant Black Out.

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.

Nevertheless, on average, solar and wind generation will allow us to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. The energy payback time of monocrystalline solar panels was recently estimated as 1 to 4 years ( see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6403211500146X and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../pip.2548/full ), and its lifetime co2 emissions were recently estimated at 38 grams co2 per kWh ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...27024813004455 ) -- far less than even natural gas generation.

Nuclear power plants could be part of the solution, too. The US hasn't had good luck getting those built on time or under budget, though; I still remember when Washington State cancelled a few. That was very expensive.

As for California -- what's wrong there? We've reduced our energy use, our economy is in good shape (the very first page I looked at on the subject, http://www.businessinsider.com/state...gs-2014-8?op=1, rated California's economy #2 out of all states in 2014), and we're phasing out imported coal-fired energy over the next few years. If CAISO's expansion plans work out, we may end up exporting energy fairly often, even.

[Sunking]

SunEagle, seems like you're arguing "unless it's perfect, it's worthless". If we were to power the grid mostly from solar and wind when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, that'd cut our carbon generation quite a bit, don't you think?

You are fooling yourself. Solar and wind is dynamic source of power trying to feed a dynamic load. It will not work. The very second a cloud passes over, or the wind slows for a moment and you have a instant Black Out. You must have Conventional Generation on line at all times running hot. You are not saving any fuel or emissions. In fact you are pissing away resources and burning more fuel. Those panels and wind turbines did not fall out of the sky. It took a incredible amount of energy and materials to make them.

How else can you explain what has happened to California? Since you went green you went from importing 10% of your electric energy in late 80's to importing over 30% today despite using less power. What part do you refuse to understand or admit?

[DanKegel]

While solar will help reduce your usage of the grid power it is not really green. It may also save you money but will hardly save the environment because it is "clean" unless you turn off all your electrical devices before the sun goes down. Because without sunlight solar does not generate any power.

SunEagle, seems like you're arguing "unless it's perfect, it's worthless". If we were to power the grid mostly from solar and wind when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, that'd cut our carbon generation quite a bit, don't you think?

[Sunking]

However there are exceptions.

Goldie Hawn back then



Goldie Hawn today.

[Sunking]

The OP left out the only worthwhile question. Is the hippie mom hot?

They use to be.

Grace Slick back then




Grace Slick today

[kingofbanff]

The OP left out the only worthwhile question. Is the hippie mom hot?

[Sunking]

Yes, definitely going green means going solar. You save your envirnoment and live in a clean energy. Sun energy is batter than electricity power. It is beneficial for envirnoment as well as for financially.

Who told you that crap.

[SunEagle]

Yes, definitely going green means going solar. You save your envirnoment and live in a clean energy. Sun energy is batter than electricity power. It is beneficial for envirnoment as well as for financially.

I am sorry Brent but that is not necessarily true. While solar will help reduce your usage of the grid power it is not really green. It may also save you money but will hardly save the environment because it is "clean" unless you turn off all your electrical devices before the sun goes down. Because without sunlight solar does not generate any power.

If you are talking about generating power without emitting carbon dioxide then the cleanest way to to that is use nuclear power generation as your base power and renewable energy when it is available.

[BrentEMarvin]

Yes, definitely going green means going solar. You save your envirnoment and live in a clean energy. Sun energy is batter than electricity power. It is beneficial for envirnoment as well as for financially.

[copymepls]

If the goal of some bike riders is to be healthy and excercise why do they use those modern, super-light, high-efficiency CF bikes anyway? My old Schwinn Continental 10-speed will build muscles way faster than a modern lightweight CF bike.

I buy old stuff all the time and go to great effort to buy used and re-use it before buying something new. That's my small contribution to the earth. I try not to be the first in line for the latest do-dad those brain-washed consumers think they must own. If someone has already used earth's resources to build a widget then better to keep using that widget than to bury it at the landfill and make another. Am I saving the earth? Of course not...just slowing down its demise very immeasurably.

Without a doubt we humans will ruin the earth eventually, we just don't know when.

I meant from the perspective of using a bicycle on roads designed for cars to get around and keep up with traffic on some slow streets. I been going without a car the last 4 years, getting around on a bike 10,000 miles a year is NOWHERE NEAR AS HARD as some lazy hippies I know think it is. Eventually new bikes need to be built and sold and more and more are being made of carbon fiber, but with huge price tags, the durability should improve in carbon design as time passes and prices are falling. I was riding a Walmart bike in the beginning, then I got a few used bikes, then I wanted something newer so I built a new bike so I could put a powermeter on it (when I learned of powermeters I was like "A dynamometer I can put on my bike to measure myself and take everywhere with me... SWEET. I have to get one").