East Coast solar project generates fury

[Jon the frog]

7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The solar panels themselves do get hot.  First just think about it logically for a moment, on average about 1 kW per meter reaches the earths surface from the sun.  A solar panel converts about 15% to 30% of that to electricity, reflects some small amount of it back away from the earth, but turns most of that energy to waste heat.  If one accounts for the amount turned to electricity and reflected away a solar panel will have a similar albedo effect as black asphalt, which tends to get rather hot in direct sunlight.

But to further prove my point without having to go into too much science, to be more exact thermodynamics there are these.

"Panels that are fixed parallel to the roof with little to no airflow between the rooftop and panel are the least efficient and experience the greatest rise in temperature (35°C). A typical rack-type installation will allow for a gap of greater than 150mm between the roof surface and the panel, allowing airflow to have a cooling effect on the panel. This type of installation is more efficient than an installation fixed parallel to the roof and typically leads to a 30°C rise in panel temperature. However, the best scenario is where the solar panel is pole-mounted in a free-standing frame (25°C)."

https://solarcalculator.com.au/solar-panel-temperature/

"Generally speaking, solar panels are 20°C (36℉) warmer than the ambient temperature. For example, the ambient temperature in the desert can reach 113℉, which this means solar panels in this climate can reach 149℉. While this would be uncomfortable to touch it is unlikely to give you any serious burns. A more valid concern is touching the metal frame of the panel."

https://www.solar-estimate.org/news/2019-01-22-how-hot-do-solar-panels-get-and-how-does-it-affect-my-system

There are more obviously online with different degrees of how in depth they get with the science, I went with ones that were less science heavy cause I dont like thermodynamics, but ultimately solar panels themselves do get hot and heat up the immediate area.

Yep solar panel are hotter than around them like i said to you, But they are not put on the ground in solar farm and normally grass grow more below them because you have less evapotranspiration because it's colder. I would not sleep on a solar panel, but i would sleep in his shade in a colder microclimate. 

[Gromdor]

You know, solar panels can be placed on a raised surface.  There is no reason why they can't develop the land underneath and put the solar panels on top.   Of course, they would be more visible from a distance that way. 

[Michelle]

Restoring forests may be one of our most powerful weapons in fighting climate change

Adding 2.2 billion acres of tree cover would capture two-thirds of man-made carbon emissions, a new study found.

Allowing the earth’s forests to recover could cancel out a significant amount of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

The worldwide assessment of current and potential forestation using satellite imagery appeared Thursday in the journal Science. It estimates that letting saplings regrow on land where forests have been cleared would increase global forested area by one-third and remove 205 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. That’s two-thirds of the roughly 300 billion metric tons of carbon humans have put up there since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

“The point is that [reforestation is] so much more vastly powerful than anyone ever expected,” said Thomas Crowther, a professor of environmental systems science at ETH Zurich and a co-author of the paper. “By far, it’s the top climate change solution in terms of carbon storage potential.”

cont...

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/4/20681331/climate-change-solutions-trees-deforestation-reforestation

[+Desertrat56]

I lived in Virginia for a year and a half.  I never saw the sun the whole time.  Virginia is one of those states where people think "sky blue" is what every one else calls grey. 

[DarkHunter]

5 hours ago, Michelle said:

Restoring forests may be one of our most powerful weapons in fighting climate change

Adding 2.2 billion acres of tree cover would capture two-thirds of man-made carbon emissions, a new study found.

Allowing the earth’s forests to recover could cancel out a significant amount of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

The worldwide assessment of current and potential forestation using satellite imagery appeared Thursday in the journal Science. It estimates that letting saplings regrow on land where forests have been cleared would increase global forested area by one-third and remove 205 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. That’s two-thirds of the roughly 300 billion metric tons of carbon humans have put up there since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

“The point is that [reforestation is] so much more vastly powerful than anyone ever expected,” said Thomas Crowther, a professor of environmental systems science at ETH Zurich and a co-author of the paper. “By far, it’s the top climate change solution in terms of carbon storage potential.”

cont...

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/4/20681331/climate-change-solutions-trees-deforestation-reforestation

Ironically if someone really wanted to reduce temperature increase on earth they would be wanting to cut down every tree on earth.  Due to a lack of time I cant find the article that goes into it but basically as far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere trees are some of the worst plants for it, just about every plant removes CO2 from the atmosphere better then trees, and the trees albedo absorbs more energy then it reflects.  Essentially trees trap more heat from the sun they what they reduce by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Ironically if every tree was cut down on earth the global average temperature would drop a few degrees C.  When I get the time I'll try to find that article/study.

[Michelle]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Ironically if someone really wanted to reduce temperature increase on earth they would be wanting to cut down every tree on earth

I wouldn't believe it would be healthy for the earth or the local environments. Trees promote undergrowth and provide natural habitats. My entire life I've believed we need to maintain the natural ecosystems. 

Cut down of all the trees and the entire country would become a hot, concrete jungle. There would be nothing left to preserve.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Michelle

[+Desertrat56]

18 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Ironically if someone really wanted to reduce temperature increase on earth they would be wanting to cut down every tree on earth.  Due to a lack of time I cant find the article that goes into it but basically as far as removing CO2 from the atmosphere trees are some of the worst plants for it, just about every plant removes CO2 from the atmosphere better then trees, and the trees albedo absorbs more energy then it reflects.  Essentially trees trap more heat from the sun they what they reduce by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Ironically if every tree was cut down on earth the global average temperature would drop a few degrees C.  When I get the time I'll try to find that article/study.

I don't think that would solve that problem, and it would create another problem.  The trees are the earth's lungs.  And anyone decimating a whole forest does not distinguish between trees and other vegetation.

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't think that would solve that problem, and it would create another problem.  The trees are the earth's lungs.  And anyone decimating a whole forest does not distinguish between trees and other vegetation.

I never said it would solve the problem, I just said cutting down all the trees would reduce global temperatures significantly which it would. 

The main point was showing that the earth is far more complex then what most people think and stuff that seems like a good and simple idea, like planting trees to reduce CO2 to combat climate change, can have unexpected side effects, like increasing the global temperature more then if the trees were never planted.  One could make the argument about the differing effects long term or short term but that all starts to get very complicated very quickly.

Also trees are not the earth's lungs, I get they teach that myth in schools and environmental groups like to proclaim it but the reality is depending on what source you want to use anywhere from 60% to 80% of the world's oxygen comes from algae in the ocean with very little oxygen coming from trees.  If I remember correctly off the top of my head trees only account for between 1% to 5% of the total world's oxygen supply.

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

I never said it would solve the problem, I just said cutting down all the trees would reduce global temperatures significantly which it would. 

The main point was showing that the earth is far more complex then what most people think and stuff that seems like a good and simple idea, like planting trees to reduce CO2 to combat climate change, can have unexpected side effects, like increasing the global temperature more then if the trees were never planted.  One could make the argument about the differing effects long term or short term but that all starts to get very complicated very quickly.

Also trees are not the earth's lungs, I get they teach that myth in schools and environmental groups like to proclaim it but the reality is depending on what source you want to use anywhere from 60% to 80% of the world's oxygen comes from algae in the ocean with very little oxygen coming from trees.  If I remember correctly off the top of my head trees only account for between 1% to 5% of the total world's oxygen supply.

your numbers are wrong.

 

Quote

71% of the earth's surface is taken up by water. Not surprisingly therefore, the seas are an important source of oxygen. National Geographic claims that photosynthesis by phytoplankton (mostly single-celled phototrophs, such as cyanobacteria, green algae and diatoms) account for half of the earth's oxygen production. The other half, they claim, is produced on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants

 

[DarkHunter]

21 minutes ago, aztek said:

your numbers are wrong.

 

 

My numbers arent wrong but you apparently still have trouble with reading comprehension since I clearly said depending on the study.

"Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere"

https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen

"Marine Plants like Phytoplankton, Kelp and Alga`s are responsible for     ( + / -) 70% of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Some Scientists even believe up to 85 percent."

http://cenalga.com/index.php/2019/01/16/more-than-70-of-the-worlds-oxygen-comes-from-the-ocean/

Would post more and would find the actual studies but I know you have a habit of ignoring anything that proves you wrong.

[Tatetopa]

47 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

"Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere"

That is encouraging isn't it?  And how well are we taking care of the phytoplankton's environment?  I think about as well as we do the rain forests and honey bees.  I know people worry about global warming as a long term danger, but might we not be ambushed in the near future by environmental degradation?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 2/17/2019 at 11:45 PM, Michelle said:

with 3,500 acres being used to house 1.8 million solar panels. The land, currently owned by seven different landowners who plan to sell it to the company, has already been cleared for timber in anticipation of the project.

Barf,  BIG chunks

[toast]

I do not understand the trouble with the project. Of course, a few people might be affected somehow but on the other hand, a fossil fueled plant would effect the health of thousands of individuals, a nuclear plant thousands for generations. There is nothing for free and there is nothing without effects to whom/- whatever when an industrial nation have to fulfill the demands for electricity. And to fulfill this very demand also with sun power is a pretty perfect way to the benefit of all, except the gangsters of the oil/fracking/nuclear industry but thats another story.

The cleared forest, which is 0.00068% of the total forestation of the US, can be reforested at another location quite easily and is a very low price for 500MW of electricity nearly produced nearly pollution free.

[Gromdor]

6 hours ago, toast said:

I do not understand the trouble with the project. Of course, a few people might be affected somehow but on the other hand, a fossil fueled plant would effect the health of thousands of individuals, a nuclear plant thousands for generations. There is nothing for free and there is nothing without effects to whom/- whatever when an industrial nation have to fulfill the demands for electricity. And to fulfill this very demand also with sun power is a pretty perfect way to the benefit of all, except the gangsters of the oil/fracking/nuclear industry but thats another story.

The cleared forest, which is 0.00068% of the total forestation of the US, can be reforested at another location quite easily and is a very low price for 500MW of electricity nearly produced nearly pollution free.

I wouldn't be surprised if that became a law sometime in the future.  Every time you develop land, you have to reclaim an equal amount of previously developed land.

When I first started construction, I was really proud of the new buildings and things I made.  But as time went on, I became a bit more jaded.  Every patch of concrete laid down won't see another blade of grass or tree.  Think it was the abandoned strip malls and the like that did it for me. 

[SHaYap]

 I just hope they don't name the solar farm "Po"

~

Quote

~

[aztek]

don't they realize deforestation means less water absorbed in the ground?  especially on hills,  Ukraine has serious issues now with floodings they never had before, they cut and sold huge amount of trees, now they pay the price,

Edited July 11, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

don't they realize deforestation means less water absorbed in the ground?  especially on hills,  Ukraine has serious issues now with floodings they never had before, they cut and sold huge amount of trees, now they pay the price,

A gas station with a nice big paved parking lot was put up on a residential street corner.  Every time it rained, all the run off flooded the residential houses adjacent to it.  The home owners complained, but the gas station said, "Too bad, so sad."  The homeowners were too poor to sue and too poor to move.  The gas station is fine though.

[aztek]

Just now, Gromdor said:

A gas station with a nice big paved parking lot was put up on a residential street corner.  Every time it rained, all the run off flooded the residential houses adjacent to it.  The home owners complained, but the gas station said, "Too bad, so sad."  The homeowners were too poor to sue and too poor to move.  The gas station is fine though.

cool story, but i do not buy it,

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

cool story, but i do not buy it,

Nope really happened.  Even made the news.  But there is no law that says you are liable for rainwater.

Edit to add a link about rainwater run off liability: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/neighbor-disputes-over-water-damage-29724.html

Edited July 11, 2019 by Gromdor

[+OverSword]

So contributing to warming then. Cutting down a large stand of natures little carbon converters that also serve to shade and cool the ground as well as provide habitat and food for animals.  Way to "alternate energy"

Edited July 11, 2019 by OverSword

[toast]

Quote

When I first started construction, I was really proud of the new buildings and things I made.  But as time went on, I became a bit more jaded.  Every patch of concrete laid down won't see another blade of grass or tree.  Think it was the abandoned strip malls and the like that did it for me. 

Thats an important point. In my country, its forbidden by law to keep ruins and their layers when buildings arent used anymore, they must be  Builders who apply for a building permit have to sign a declaration of commitment for a torn down. No declaration = no permit. In case the facility get sold, the new owner have to take over responsibility.

[aztek]

45 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Nope really happened.  Even made the news.  But there is no law that says you are liable for rainwater.

Edit to add a link about rainwater run off liability: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/neighbor-disputes-over-water-damage-29724.html

i do not buy it because small claims court does not require lawyers, and it is free, only small fee for subpoena,   they absolutely could try that,   and they could have a case if they showed gas station failed to install proper drainage. 

just because it is reported does not make it 100% true,

Edited July 11, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

20 minutes ago, aztek said:

i do not buy it because small claims court does not require lawyers, and it is free, only small fee for subpoena,   they absolutely could try that,   and they could have a case if they showed gas station failed to install proper drainage. 

just because it is reported does not make it 100% true,

Eh, suit yourself.  You believing it or not isn't going to change anything nor is it important for anything on the grand scale of things.  (Small claims is capped at $6500 btw.  A flooded basement is way more than that.)

It was a local story, generally those are easy to prove true because you can just drive over and look at it yourself.  "Trust but verify" beats "deny and disbelieve" when it comes to getting to the truths of the matter any day.

[aztek]

Just now, Gromdor said:

Eh, suit yourself.  You believing it or not isn't going to change anything nor is it important for anything on the grand scale of things.  (Small claims is capped at $6500 btw.  A flooded basement is way more than that.)

It was a local story, generally those are easy to prove true because you can just drive over and look at it yourself.  "Trust but verify" beats "deny and disbelieve" when it comes to getting to the truths of the matter any day.

lets see, 6500 vs 0, hmm that is a hard choice. 

[Gromdor]

Just now, aztek said:

lets see, 6500 vs 0, hmm that is a hard choice. 

It was 0 vs 0.  Small claims court would not have solved the root problem and the judge can't rule for damages in excess of the small claims.  And to to be blunt, the poor old people in these small Iowa towns live from one social security check to the next.  Even an $80 deviation is a horrible financial blow to them.