Allpar Forums banner

21 - 40 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
If you want to contain CO2, plant the same area in trees or other vegetation and you have reduced atmospheric CO2 more than by using solar power to generate electricity.
I didn't know this. Do you have a source, or is this speculation only? In fact, the Googling I did, with several articles, seems to indicate this is not only wrong, it's heavily biased towards solar saving more CO2 output than trees offset.
Example source: Tree Math 2: Solar vs. Trees, What’s the Carbon Trade-off? | The Energy Miser

Also note this is for New England, so areas where sunlight is stronger or less cloudy would see an even larger benefit.
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,939 Posts
Solar panels are eyesores.

If you want to contain CO2, plant the same area in trees or other vegetation and you have reduced atmospheric CO2 more than by using solar power to generate electricity.

Cutting trees and destroying vegetation so you can cover tens of thousands of acres in solar panels is not rational. Yes, they are clearing forests and other areas to put up wind turbines or solar panels. That is insanity.

Trees and other vegetation absorb CO2 naturally. Why is this not part of the solution?
You want to talk about eyesores? Ever seen a refinery? We lived near the one in Delaware City for about 12 years. Not only was it an eyesore, but it was foul smelling often as well…as they dumped toxic gases into the air that shouldn’t have been released…”oops, did we do that??”. Do you think they chopped down any trees to build that refinery…or the tank farms…or the pipes…or the retaining ponds…or the numerous other structures? Do you think the local vegetation, wildlife, or human populations fare well with all of the crap emanating from that monstrosity? Cancer rates in Delaware City itself, downwind from the refinery, are much higher than the surrounding areas.

So losing some trees for some wind turbines or solar panels would be less of a concern for me than a toxin-spewing monstrosity like a refinery. Trees can be replanted. Humans can’t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Solar panels are eyesores.

If you want to contain CO2, plant the same area in trees or other vegetation and you have reduced atmospheric CO2 more than by using solar power to generate electricity.

Cutting trees and destroying vegetation so you can cover tens of thousands of acres in solar panels is not rational. Yes, they are clearing forests and other areas to put up wind turbines or solar panels. That is insanity.

Trees and other vegetation absorb CO2 naturally. Why is this not part of the solution?
It is
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
You want to talk about eyesores? Ever seen a refinery? We lived near the one in Delaware City for about 12 years. Not only was it an eyesore, but it was foul smelling often as well…as they dumped toxic gases into the air that shouldn’t have been released…”oops, did we do that??”. Do you think they chopped down any trees to build that refinery…or the tank farms…or the pipes…or the retaining ponds…or the numerous other structures? Do you think the local vegetation, wildlife, or human populations fare well with all of the crap emanating from that monstrosity? Cancer rates in Delaware City itself, downwind from the refinery, are much higher than the surrounding areas.

So losing some trees for some wind turbines or solar panels would be less of a concern for me than a toxin-spewing monstrosity like a refinery. Trees can be replanted. Humans can’t.
You are fooling yourself to believe refineries or chemical plants are going away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehaase

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Ever see strip mining? Think oil wells are beautiful?
Oil and gas wells, once in production are beautiful. This is not the 1950s.

Here is how they remove healthy trees to install wind turbines. At one time, environmentalists cares about "saving the trees"

80858
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehaase

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,511 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,423 Posts
Solar panels are eyesores.

If you want to contain CO2, plant the same area in trees or other vegetation and you have reduced atmospheric CO2 more than by using solar power to generate electricity.

Cutting trees and destroying vegetation so you can cover tens of thousands of acres in solar panels is not rational. Yes, they are clearing forests and other areas to put up wind turbines or solar panels. That is insanity.

Trees and other vegetation absorb CO2 naturally. Why is this not part of the solution?
You assume that your scenario is the only one.
Solar panels being eyesores is very subjective. They can and are mounted in a variety of places - residential rooftops; commercial rooftops; up and down the sides of (objectively) ugly closed landfill mountains; on brownfields that are already cleared of vegetation; on top of carports at many places - schools, shopping centers, manufacturing plants - and they offer the dual advantage of producing electricity while greatly reducing the temperature inside, and damage to, the interiors of the cars under them. They are a net producer of income.
While there certainly is some wholesale cutting of trees to set up solar fields, where IMO there should not be, many are placed in areas already cleared and of little value due to, as I said, brownfields. Planting trees does NOT generate electricity, whereas solar panels reduce the formation of excess CO2 and also generate electricity AND jobs. Tree-planting is a quick, one-time job that is partially automated. Many permanent jobs are created by manufacturing, selling, transporting, installing, and maintaining solar panels. And they pay far more than planting trees.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,423 Posts
Oil and gas wells, once in production are beautiful. This is not the 1950s.

Here is how they remove healthy trees to install wind turbines. At one time, environmentalists cares about "saving the trees"

View attachment 80858
"Oil and gas wells, once in production are beautiful."
80860

80859

Again, that is very subjective, but I find NO beauty in such a landscape. They are hideous, they spew toxic chemicals and cause high cancer rates locally, increase devastating fire danger, and to me are FAR less scenic than the windmill picture above (which retains MANY more trees and natural landscape than any well or refinery site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevin m. Henry

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
"Oil and gas wells, once in production are beautiful."
View attachment 80860
View attachment 80859
Again, that is very subjective, but I find NO beauty in such a landscape. They are hideous, they spew toxic chemicals and cause high cancer rates locally, increase devastating fire danger, and to me are FAR less scenic than the windmill picture above (which retains MANY more trees and natural landscape than any well or refinery site.
That is a leak from a failing pumpjack, not oil production. Do you think wind turbines have no failures?




80861
80862
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,423 Posts
Actually, it's an abandoned well, not just a leaking one.
Sunlight doesn't leak or cause harm. And doesn't need to be transported, and doesn't give money to terrorists.
If you prefer, here is your beautiful landscape of functioning wells. None of which refutes my assertions on the technology or siting.
80863

80864
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Actually, it's an abandoned well, not just a leaking one.
Sunlight doesn't leak or cause harm. And doesn't need to be transported, and doesn't give money to terrorists.
If you prefer, here is your beautiful landscape of functioning wells. None of which refutes my assertions on the technology or siting.
View attachment 80863
View attachment 80864
With the majority of solar panels coming from China, I guess you do not mind supporting ethnic cleansing, genocide in progress communists.

Delta Solar Ruins – Hinckley, Utah - Atlas Obscura

Abandoned Dreams of Wind and Light - Atlas Obscura

Hawaii’s Future? Abandoned Solar Farms Clutter California Desert > Hawaii Free Press
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,423 Posts
With the majority of solar panels coming from China, I guess you do not mind supporting ethnic cleansing, genocide in progress communists.

Delta Solar Ruins – Hinckley, Utah - Atlas Obscura

Abandoned Dreams of Wind and Light - Atlas Obscura

Hawaii’s Future? Abandoned Solar Farms Clutter California Desert > Hawaii Free Press
You guess wrong. Perhaps you should actually ASK me instead of assuming my beliefs and values. Then you don't lose as much credibility.
I vastly prefer to have them made here, and have invested in companies that did so in the past. But the trade imbalance and the policies that allow China to destroy American businesses is a separate discussion altogether. Let's not deflect the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
I do not oppose wind and solar. I only oppose it for replacing more reliable sources.

Wind and solar are intermittent power. Like a BEV, they are not good at supplying our electrical needs all the time.

Wind and solar are fine to supplement other sources. Wind and solar are great on a rooftop.

There are many solar farms abandoned now. They are eyesores. They do not work because the technology does not work. No solar farm has lived up to its generating promises. Typically, they have delivered half the predicted kilowatts.

I am sorry, but covering over 3000 acres for 550 megawatts of intermittent power is dumb. A combined cycle plant can produce that reliably on 18 acres.

But wind and solar need a reliable backup. Like a hybrid car, wind and solar need natural gas and nuclear to carry the main load reliably.

The UK gov't announced that about 20% of its farmland will be used for solar panels. Please tell me that this is logical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Estimating the solar energy generated per acre, a solar development that on average produces 1 GWh per year, requires around 2.8 acres of land. Taking this into account, on every acre, the plant produces an average of 0.357 GWh or 357 MWh of electricity per year.

This means your 3000 acre field of solar would produce over 1 million megawatts (1071 Gigawatts) per year. Not 550.

Look, it seems like you have some huge misconceptions and fake information regarding how much superior green energy actually IS. If it weren't for fossil fuel subsidies and lobbyists, we'd have gone green as a country decades ago.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,511 Posts
I might add that solar is just one of several renewables. Wind is also present and increasing in popularity as costs go down.

Just about every major oil producing country supports terrorism, bigly - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia. Canada’s oil development has been incredibly dirty; shale oil development is incredibly nasty and poisons water supplies for decades if not generations.

We don't have to buy solar panels from China. We do make them in the United States.

Yes, there are downsides to wind and solar. There are downsides to nuclear, too - and I haven't seen a really credible answer to the problems of nuclear yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Estimating the solar energy generated per acre, a solar development that on average produces 1 GWh per year, requires around 2.8 acres of land. Taking this into account, on every acre, the plant produces an average of 0.357 GWh or 357 MWh of electricity per year.

This means your 3000 acre field of solar would produce over 1 million megawatts (1071 Gigawatts) per year. Not 550.

Look, it seems like you have some huge misconceptions and fake information regarding how much superior green energy actually IS. If it weren't for fossil fuel subsidies and lobbyists, we'd have gone green as a country decades ago.
That information is wrong.

Look here at actual solar power plants and their footprint and capacity (which they never reach).

List of photovoltaic power stations - Wikipedia
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,939 Posts
You are fooling yourself to believe refineries or chemical plants are going away.
Did I say that they were going away? Whether or not they will go away in the future, I tend to think that they will eventually, though probably not in our lifetimes. That’s neither here nor there. The point being, oil refineries are much more of an eyesore, and much more dangerous to life than wind farms or solar panels. If they do go away, I’d hazard a guess that each site will be a superfund site.

And the one in Delaware City almost did go away…they found a buyer after it was shut down.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,423 Posts
Is this the same forum member who criticized Wiki recently as being an unreliable source?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Did I say that they were going away? Whether or not they will go away in the future, I tend to think that they will eventually, though probably not in our lifetimes. That’s neither here nor there. The point being, oil refineries are much more of an eyesore, and much more dangerous to life than wind farms or solar panels. If they do go away, I’d hazard a guess that each site will be a superfund site.

And the one in Delaware City almost did go away…they found a buyer after it was shut down.
I never compared oil refineries to solar farms. You did.

Do you want to compare lithium mines to refineries? That would be more appropriate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
21 - 40 of 65 Posts
Top