Solar panels more important than trees!!

[Kraut]

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_8194044

Calif. couple forced to cut down their 20-40 foot tall redwoods because the trees shade their neighbors *new* solar panels.

Interesting problem!

My vote goes to keeping the trees.

[hoodedclawjen]

i remember there were problems in the UK a few years back with people planting fast growing trees in their gardens that totally wiped out their neighbours light - nothing to do with solar panels, but the trees ended up coming down.

its a shame they couldn't come to an agreement between themselves before it got to this point.

my vote'd go with the panels. trees can be planted and grow elsewhere, its a bit trickier to move a roof. the amount of solar power produced by the panels would be a little more than a few trees worth, even if they weren't replaced- and trees are renewable- i'd assume that the energy used by the house if the panels weren't operational, probably wouldn't be.

[Skylark]

I thought it was interesting in the article one of the sources mentioned sequestering carbon as a reason trees are beneficial, but he didn't say anything about trees offering shade. Shade can definitely reduce cooling costs in the summer, as well as giving people options for where to spend leisure time (IE it doesn't all have to be indoors.) I realize in some areas people don't go outside to their yards much anyway.

But, trees mainly reduce cooling costs if the shade covers part/all of the roof, which would make solar panels less effective.

[otomik]

Ben Tre logic:
"it became necessary to destroy the environment to save it."

[JLRodgers]

Can kind of see both points there.... I'd side with the trees personally -- but then I also think power companies should use renewable sources to generate power, as well as certain house development practices that could probably cut heating/cooling costs in half or more.

[Scythe]

They should install solar panels on the trees.

[Savannah]

not a clear question here. the trees were planted by the homeowners for privacy reasons and had grown very tall. there had been requests to shorten the trees but they refused to do it. so, it was not simply a question of redwoods vs. solar panels. not sure how i would have decided it myself. seems like something where a compromise would be in order.

eta: actually there was a compromise of sorts in the order, two of the trees were ordered to be removed but the other six could remain.

[Beancounter]

The solar panel owner should have installed the panels somewhere else to begin with. With a little forsight he could have seen the issue arising in the future. Even little children know that trees grow over time.

[hoodedclawjen]

its quite possible that there wasn't somewhere else suitable. if you have a north/south facing roof, i'm under the impression that if you put it on the wrong side it'll be sod-all use. if your property is surrounded by big trees, on the side of a hill, and/or you don't have a lot of land around the house, the roof might well be the only effective location.

[Savannah]

that is apparently the case here (from the article linked above):

"...Meanwhile, Vargas says he can't move his solar panels — on his roof and his trellis — because his roof doesn't have enough room..."

[Beancounter]

that is apparently the case here (from the article linked above):

"...Meanwhile, Vargas says he can't move his solar panels — on his roof and his trellis — because his roof doesn't have enough room..."

Yes I read that too.

That doesn't excuse poor planning. I've seen solar panels placed on poles or other structures. From the article it seems he had an idea that the trees would be an issue, (asking his neighbors to remove or trim the trees), but he installed them anyway. If he knew there would be issues, then installing the panels is almost like entrapment.

He was just lucky that the law worked in his favor (The trees were planted after 1979, so they couldn't be "grandfathered"). Obviously the law states otherwise, but IMO, the trees were there first, and should remain.

[hoodedclawjen]

legally and 'fairness-wise' the trees do have dibs on the sky. if i was the tree-owners (or maybe even one of the trees) i'd be peeved and find it unfair to have their removal enforced.

environmentally, it'd suck to enforce it that way, though.

i keep thinking about how many trees worth of non-renewable fossil fuels that house'd use up over the next 100 years if it didn't have its panels working.

[Huckleberry]

The trees should stay. If they want to use solar panels they should move. I guess if I want to use solar panels I should ask the city to bulldoze this hill near my house, it blocks the sun after all. Where does it stop?

[Animosity]

That makes no sense to me. Oh, Lets go green and save the environment! But, Oh, Wait! The trees are shading our solar panels, I guess we'll have to cut all the trees down... Sorta defeats the purpose, Now doesn't it? I guess the panels could save more trees than using normal energy, Still, It shouldn't have to be at the cost of the trees life. They should have planed it better. Didn't they realize the trees could have posed a problem before they got them? In my mind, Whichever was their first, Has the right to be there now.

[lefty2026]

That makes no sense to me. Oh, Lets go green and save the environment! But, Oh, Wait! The trees are shading our solar panels, I guess we'll have to cut all the trees down... Sorta defeats the purpose, Now doesn't it?

There are a lot of problems with solar panels environmentally. It has some great applications of course (space exploration, bringing electricity to remote areas) but it's not the amazing solution many make it out to be. Because the sun doesn't deliver that much energy to any one place at any one time, a large surface area is required to collect the energy at a useful rate. Also the manufacturing process of the panels produces damaging by products. There are downsides to any energy source, for example wind energry farms may be harmful to certain birds. Personally I advocate for nuclear, but I have something to be gained by it's increasing popularity. It of course, also has it's own set of positive/negative impacts.

There are many factors that determine which forms of energy are most effective and least damaging for each application. My guess is that the people in the article are really far more concerned with keeping their electricity bill low than saving the planet.

[otomik]

Personally I advocate for nuclear, but I have something to be gained by it's increasing popularity.Nuclear power is the future, we all have something to be gained by it's increasing popularity.

[Beancounter]

Personally I advocate for nuclear, but I have something to be gained by it's increasing popularity. It of course, also has it's own set of positive/negative impacts.

What are the modern nuclear waste containment methods? (in laymen's terms) :)

[lefty2026]

Nuclear power is the future, we all have something to be gained by it's increasing popularity.

I agree.


High level radioactive waste (used reactor fuel) is temporarily stored in spent fuel pools or contained in dry casks (barrels) at the plant. Depending on the site, the waste may also be treated a variety of ways. Currently there is no permanant site for disposal, but far underground at Yucca mountain is proposed. Spent fuel is transported in a cask that is able to withstand just about anything.

This is a pretty good site that discusses spent fuel

http://nsnfp.inel.gov/whatis.asp

If you have questions, you can pm me, and I can explain in more detail. If I don't know, I'll find out, I'm trying to learn everything I can about it anyway, and I have access to lots of resources here.

[Beancounter]

This is a pretty good site that discusses spent fuel

http://nsnfp.inel.gov/whatis.asp



Thanks!