Killing Trees For Solar Panels

[Raintree]

Sure been a up tick of calls to remove trees to give way to solar panels. For the past few years I feel like I have chlorophyll on my hands. Taken out real nice shade trees on the south side of homes for these damn panels. Don't know how solar can offset the extra cost of AC needed after the tree is gone. What a shame the so called "Green crowd" are deceived into believing they are saving the environment. The added kicker is the removal costs are tax deductible, thanks big Govt. Urban shade forest vs the sun god worshipers & I'm doing the dirty work . Feeding the family & paying the bill sure dose suck at times.

 

[ATH]

Oh, the irony!

 

[GrassGuerilla]

Lmao. Makes about as much sense as mandating handhelds so lean they don't last two years and shipping them around the world by the boatload. My gut tells me both have the opposite of the intended effect.

 

[MasterBlaster]

As long as the homeowner plants replacement trees, preferably 2:1, I don't see the big deal. Solar energy is green as a mofo and the wave of the future.

 

[GrassGuerilla]

As long as the homeowner plants replacement trees, preferably 2:1, I don't see the big deal. Solar energy is green as a mofo and the wave of the future.

If they ever make it work financially. Still doesn't without a tax credit. Thus it may be green, but still red.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Why does everyone feel compelled to quote the previous post? It's so friggin redundant and unnecessary.

 

[GrassGuerilla]

Because often if you don't, your response often ends up several post removed from that which you are responding to. Thus leaving said response without context.

 

[BuckmasterStumpGrinding]

Tree use solar energy to take in co2 and produce free life sustaining o2.
Solar panels use solar energy to produce electric that is not free.
The question I wonder about is how much more co2 a tree would take in as apposed to the smaller reduction in co2 production from electric savings.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I'll say it again - replant.

 

[derwoodii]

i feel your pain and in the same boat grrr often the install is poorly thought though gain vs loss and shade maps not done also in lower latitudes the solar gain is hardly worth while tree loss vs low weak sun of winter months..

redirect review replant or avoid minimizes offset loss

 

[BuckmasterStumpGrinding]

I agree the trees should be replaced. My question is how effective is that solar panel at reducing co2 vs a tree. I did a google search and came up with mixed results. It would be nice to have some scientific numbers to compare tree size vs solar panel size.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Apples and oranges, mate.

 

[jefflovstrom]

We do a lot of school district work. We have removed many trees as they are going solar. The money they save in electric is massive. Totally worth it.
Jeff

 

[GrassGuerilla]

We do a lot of school district work. We have removed many trees as they are going solar. The money they save in electric is massive. Totally worth it.
Jeff

I don't know if larger scale applications like a school changes the cost/benefit analysis. Typical residential systems installed in 2013 were expected to take 20 years to break even. How many do you think will make 20 years trouble free? And that was with the tax credit.

I know a family locally that recently made the investments to do this at several of their offsprings homes. Time will tell, how long they remain trouble free being the deciding factor. I have doubts that current technology has broken the barrier of being long term cost efficient and truly green. Maybe in time, but its still pretty much a wash. Between the pollution of the manufacturing of the solar panels, net transport of the goods, destruction of the trees green effect, and likelihood of replacement costs kicking the investment return date further down the road it's still tentative at best. Is everybody involved stoked about "new" work? Heck yeah. Are the investors getting their money's worth? Not yet.

Edit: don't mistake my comment as being negative about the technology. I just think its important to see the big picture in regard to any savings.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Yeah, I don't know about residential,
Jeff

 

[Raintree]

Solar up here in the Northeast is marginal at best. I have yet to plant any replacements, not from the lack of trying. Removed four Maples this past week two Sugars & two Reds with DBH of 24"-28", nice trees. Any future work on them is gone.

 

[jefflovstrom]

It is a busy biz here,,but hey, we ain't seen rain since I don't know when.
My MIL has solar for the pool, not electricity only water. It saves her a couple hundred dollars a month. She use to have a $400 a month water bill,I think it is less than $100 a month now.
Jeff

 

[KenJax Tree]

Tap into the water line with a spigot before it gets to the meter and you can fill a huge pool for free.

 

[EcoTreeCo]

In Colorado we average over 300 days of sunlight a year. Yes, the initial cost is substantial, and the carbon offset is marginal, but, the culture change is essential.

Trees can be replanted with efficiency in mind. Proper planning can reduce future costs in watering, pest management, soil management and the always important shade.
Most clients considering solar power put incredible amounts of effort into the decision. They have decided to "sacrifice" these trees for future gains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zale]

Why does everyone feel compelled to quote the previous post? It's so friggin redundant and unnecessary.

I agree, it is redundant and unnecessary.