SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
He is a pharmacist.It should be a given that he cannot understand climate science.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
Recently sold our home, and am in a position now to focus on the last thirty years. Our now primary home needs a new roof, and I have finally positioned or framed the discussion (here at home) around financing our roof by paying ourselves back with 6% interest instead of a bank for 4.5%. You guessed it, a Tesla solar roof.
Now, if you are watching the stock, each time I buy a Tesla product, Tesla heads north of its last resting place. So I figure that the third time is the charm, and will only rest just short of the moon. Just sayin. FYI ~ bought a new X and off we go
. Greeeeen yesterday
The tax incentive is nice too
Now, if you are watching the stock, each time I buy a Tesla product, Tesla heads north of its last resting place. So I figure that the third time is the charm, and will only rest just short of the moon. Just sayin. FYI ~ bought a new X and off we go
. Greeeeen yesterdayThe tax incentive is nice too
Dude, you will like your PV arrayRecently sold our home, and am in a position now to focus on the last thirty years. Our now primary home needs a new roof, and I have finally positioned or framed the discussion (here at home) around financing our roof by paying ourselves back with 6% interest instead of a bank for 4.5%. You guessed it, a Tesla solar roof.
Now, if you are watching the stock, each time I buy a Tesla product, Tesla heads north of its last resting place. So I figure that the third time is the charm, and will only rest just short of the moon. Just sayin. FYI ~ bought a new X and off we go
The tax incentive is nice too
I don’t have solar roof but do have 11.655kW array (60sq meters) I have made 9.65megawatt hours since 12/10/2018 and only used 4.65mwh.
All leds, electric instant water heater, no water tank, pool pump, big A/C (hot in SW Florida)
Looking to start/join “virtual power plant”
Make sure you can island and micro grid when Grid goes down
I've been getting solar quotes and it is a bit frustrating. I have a 10KW limit at the meter by the utility company. I figure that translates to about a 12KW array. Quotes keep coming in at 6KW even when I request 12 KW. It seems they don't want to actually come out until a contract is signed. I tried to get Tesla to sell to me but they say not in Georgia. Crud. They have better and more attractive systems at a competitive price but I can't get it. In the next week or two I'll have to make a decision. One company is significantly cheaper but I am nervous about them.
@SR22pilot
my PV array, while "technically" at 11.655kW (37, 315 panels with Enphase IQ7 microinverters, compatible with IQ8's that will island when released)(Enphase IQ8 Update...)
anyway 11.655 = 9,906 when you do the 85%
if i went over 10kW i would have 4-5x insurance requirements, 4-5x paperwork, etc, but my array makes 200- 225% of my needs so far but havent used immersion heater on pool yet (love 88 - 90 degree heated pool)
i'm in SW Florida near Sanibel/Captiva, but used WindmarHome out of Orlando/PuertoRico as they are quite knowledgable an not "widget salesmen"
call 407-308-0099 (main) or 407-491-6146 ask for Geoff Green
(perhaps this should be PM's)
I seriously wanted Tesla PV panels and powerwall, but not in my area, so went for next best i guess. tried for at least 2 yrs
Everyone agrees 12KW will be under 10KW at the meter. However, I get the "Well, when you sign we can come out and have our engineer max out the system." I have to get past an HOA so I need a serious placement diagram before I sign. I also have to know what trees to top and how far down. Since those are in the back and there are plenty of trees behind the culprits, I think I will be OK but I have to get my neighbors to sign off. I use about 2,000 KWH per month. That includes charging two cars.
@SR22pilot
i went to home show where Windmar was exhibiting, gave them my home address, in about 10-15 minutes they had mocked up a nice diagram with 37 panels on 2 roofs Alt/Azimuth etc (14 on 1 roof, 23 on the other)
try this also
Project Sunroof
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
My experience was different. Each spring and fall the AC output would exceed the DC rating. You are right in terms of averages but the utility cares about peak output in this context.
@SR22pilot, is it not possible to install a larger array but limit your output to the grid by undersizing the inverter (within specs)? You'd get a flat peak to your curve but it would be wider and would maximize your winter production as well.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas.
Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
1 Tree sequesters on average ~13 lbs/yr. Then that's released when they die unless you can find a way to keep them from decomposing. 1 Solar Panels is >50 lbs/yr and that carbon stays locked away as fools fuel.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Reforestation is a carbon sink which reaches a steady state between trees dying and new ones taking their place.
Clean energy (hopefully) keeps fossils in the ground; reforestation removes some of the fossils already combusted.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Link to the original Science article study:
The global tree restoration potential
If a tree falls in a forest, will replanting it help curb global warming? Scientists say planting a trillion trees globally could be the single most effective way to fight climate change.
According to a new study in the journal Science, planting billions of trees around the world would be the cheapest and most effective way to tackle the climate crisis. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, a worldwide planting initiative could remove a substantial portion of heat-trapping emissions from the atmosphere.
The researchers say a program at this scale could remove about two-thirds of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by human activities since the start of the industrial revolution, or nearly 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
The global tree restoration potential
If a tree falls in a forest, will replanting it help curb global warming? Scientists say planting a trillion trees globally could be the single most effective way to fight climate change.
According to a new study in the journal Science, planting billions of trees around the world would be the cheapest and most effective way to tackle the climate crisis. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, a worldwide planting initiative could remove a substantial portion of heat-trapping emissions from the atmosphere.
The researchers say a program at this scale could remove about two-thirds of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by human activities since the start of the industrial revolution, or nearly 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I maintain that this is closer to FUD than a solution. It's another way for people to feel like they're helping to solve a problem with very little effort and in actuality doing very little to solve the problem. I remember starting at URENCO. When the 'Green Team' had a ceremony to plant a row of trees. ~50 people drove ~40 cars >40 miles round trip. We didn't even actually plant the trees. It was just the 'first shovel' thing. Our facilities people actually did the work. The trees are now dead because our facility is located in SE NM. But hey... we all felt good in the moment....
'Excluding existing trees and agricultural and urban areas, we found that there is room for an extra 0.9 billion hectares of canopy cover, which could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon in areas that would naturally support woodlands and forests.'
For context Global CO2 emission in 2018 were 37.1 gigatonnes.... How long would it take to absorb that ~205B tons? 30 years? 30 years to offset <6 years of emissions? Then what?
For context Global CO2 emission in 2018 were 37.1 gigatonnes.... How long would it take to absorb that ~205B tons? 30 years? 30 years to offset <6 years of emissions? Then what?
Re-Forestation is not as simple as just planting trees. It's getting increasingly difficult to keep our forests from catching fire. We need better forest management A LOT more than we need more forests. Paradoxically increased logging of existing forests (provided more trees are replanted) will be more effective at CO2 sequestration than attempting to plant trees where trees don't belong. Harvested timber is CO2 sequestration. Instead of more acres of forest we need to make more forest a 'working forest'.
Calculating the effectiveness of forests as a carbon 'sink' is even more fraught with manipulation than well-to-wheel calcs. Which numbers are they considering? Just the CO2 absorbed per year? Respiration? Fire is a natural part of a forest. Are they including the CO2 released when the forest burns as it needs to? Even under the best conditions an entire acre of trees is roughly the same as ~5kW of rooftop solar...
If forests were good at locking away CO2 then CO2 in the biosphere would not be as stable as it has been (until recently). The oscillations are due to CO2 going into and out of the oceans since cold water is able to hold more gas. Interglacial CO2 levels remained roughly the same.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Forests are good at locking away CO2. The problem is that we have been cutting them down and burning them for agriculture at an accelerating pace. The Amazon alone is being burned at the rate of a football pitch a minute. This is done to grow soybeans for animal feed and for cattle pasture. You can't say forests aren't good for carbon capture when you keep cutting them down and burning them.
I think this Science article is a good faith attempt to estimate the CO2 impact of planting trees. It has much more potential than all of the carbon capture and storage schemes combined. The authors were careful to include only areas where the trees would actually grow as well as taking into account agricultural uses.
The authors point out that this is not an easy feel good solution since the scale of the tree planting is massive (literally trillions of trees).
I wouldn't confuse this proposal as a substitute for continuing to burn fossil fuels. It is designed to remove CO2 from the environment.
“This new quantitative evaluation shows [forest] restoration isn’t just one of our climate change solutions, it is overwhelmingly the top one,” said Prof Tom Crowther at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, who led the research. “What blows my mind is the scale. I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.”
Why are trees good for the environment?
There are about three trillion trees on the planet and they play a major role in producing the oxygen we all breathe. But twice as many existed before the start of human civilisation.
Today, 10 billion more trees are cut down than are planted every year. This destruction is a significant contributor to the carbon emissions that are driving the climate crisis. However, trees draw carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere as they grow, and planting trees will need to play an important part in ending the climate emergency.
Forests are also a vital and rich habitat for wildlife. Earth is at the start of a sixth mass extinction of species and the razing of forests and other ecosystems is the biggest contributor to the losses. Tropical rainforests are especially important, hosting 50% of known terrestrial species on only 6% of the world’s land. Trees are also important in controlling regional rainfall, as they evaporate water from their leaves.
In urban areas, the shade from trees has been shown to both cool city streets and reduce levels of air pollution. They can also boost people’s wellbeing as part of green spaces, with research showing two-hour “dose” of nature a week significantly improving health.
Crowther said: “The most effective projects are doing restoration for 30 US cents a tree. That means we could restore the 1tn trees for $300bn [£240bn], though obviously that means immense efficiency and effectiveness. But it is by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed.” He said financial incentives to land owners for tree planting are the only way he sees it happening, but he thinks $300bn would be within reach of a coalition of billionaire philanthropists and the public.
Their website has much more information:
Home - Crowtherlab
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
I love my world ~ period, amen; blah, blah, blah.
Cynical, yes and I apologize up front. As I commented to my wife the other day I am a "bull in a pottery barn."
I am height, educationally and elitist challenged Thus, I fly beautifully under the radar of life.
While I do not have the issues that prompt this mantra, I am more and more trying to adapt it for my own sanity ~ which is a fine line. Quote: “Allow me to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” This fits my "small footprint" theory just right.
I wish and pray (my way ~ not yours) that I could protect Mother Earth better, but she is like me ~ either you love me or hate me. I have failed and been misunderstood over the years. On the second of May 1969 I enlisted to stand tall for my nation, now look where we are; if only I had been taller maybe
We have to address trees ~ absolutely. But we have to address religion, excess population, greed, hate and so forth. Otherwise, they are just words lost in the wind I love my world; care to join me? Failure to address these issues and establish rules/laws fails the foundation of bring us up for air.
PS ~ you do not, nor are you required to love me My poor wife is still trying to figure that one out after almost forty-six years
Cynical, yes and I apologize up front. As I commented to my wife the other day I am a "bull in a pottery barn."
I am height, educationally and elitist challenged
Thus, I fly beautifully under the radar of life.While I do not have the issues that prompt this mantra, I am more and more trying to adapt it for my own sanity ~ which is a fine line. Quote: “Allow me to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” This fits my "small footprint" theory just right.
I wish and pray (my way ~ not yours) that I could protect Mother Earth better, but she is like me ~ either you love me or hate me. I have failed and been misunderstood over the years. On the second of May 1969 I enlisted to stand tall for my nation, now look where we are; if only I had been taller maybe
We have to address trees ~ absolutely. But we have to address religion, excess population, greed, hate and so forth. Otherwise, they are just words lost in the wind
I love my world; care to join me? Failure to address these issues and establish rules/laws fails the foundation of bring us up for air.PS ~ you do not, nor are you required to love me
My poor wife is still trying to figure that one out after almost forty-six years
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Forests are good at holding on to carbon temporarily. Most of that CO2 is released when they burn or decay. Arboreal forests were good at holding carbon... now the tundra is a ticking time bomb.
Halting deforestation is not the same as planting new forest. Halting the conversion of forests into agriculture would be more effective than planting more trees but even that is only ~8% of emissions.
By what metric? There are capture and storage schemes that ACTUALLY lock away carbon not just hold on to it until the tree dies. We also haven't yet scaled any of them so the commercial cost is unknown.
I agree that trees are good at cooling, reducing pollution and improving health in urban areas... but all those trees do less than a small solar array for reducing CO2. So do it for those reasons. Just like if you want to put ~10,000 people to work in high paying jobs then building 2GW of nuclear is a great idea... it's just not a very cost effective approach to addressing climate change.
I've known people that hesitate to get solar because of a few trees... thinking that eliminating a few trees somehow won't offset the benefit of adding solar to their roof. 1 solar panel is literally >50x more effective than a tree.....
Last edited:
Merrill
Merrill
Similar threads
