200 Nations sign on to Paris Climate Deal

polaris_x

really ... this is what we're up against ...

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/solar-farm-rejected-over-fears-it-could-drain-sun-cause-cancer

The Paris climate change agreement is a triumph for the planet, but the widespread ignorance of this subject demonstrates a failure of science communication. And this ignorance is more than just a laughing matter: it could represent an obstacle to reaching certain energy goals. For instance, a town in the U.S. has just blocked construction of a solar farm, in part due to fears it would drain the Sun’s energy, Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald reports.

Before we go into detail, let us just clarify a few things. Solar panels do not suck up the Sun’s rays of photons. Just like wind farms do not deplete our planet of wind. It’s in the name: these renewable sources of energy are not finite like fossil fuels; we simply harness what is available to us. Wind turbines and solar panels are not vacuums, nor do they divert this energy from other systems. Photons constantly stream towards the planet, and air continually rushes over our lands. There is no “using up” involved.

Now we have got the science out of the way, back to the story that will likely leave your face thoroughly embedded in your palm. In the town of Woodland, North Carolina, the council has rejected a proposal for the rezoning of a strip of land from residential/agricultural to manufacturing, a move that prevents the construction of a solar farm on the turf. Not only that, but during the same meeting the town council actually voted for a blanket ban on solar farms, despite the fact that three had previously been granted approval, one of which is already being installed.

No, we are not stealing the Sun.

By a vote of 3-1, council members approved the rejection of the planned rezoning on the grounds of concerns that had been raised by the public. For instance, Woodland resident Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, feared that vegetation in the area would suffer through a lack of photosynthesis, an energy-making process that requires sunlight. Her anecdotal evidence comes in the form of dead plants she has observed around solar panels. Disappointingly, she is not alone in her beliefs: another resident also said that the farm would suck up the Sun’s energy.

Mann also voiced concerns of supposedly elevated cancer levels in the area, and the fact that no one had demonstrated these weren’t to do with the installation of the solar panels. If this is a genuine worry shared among residents, or indeed the wider community, it is completely unfounded. Although UV radiation is a carcinogen, something that can cause cancer, solar panels do not affect the amount of UV rays that hit an area.

Some solar farms are designed in such a way that incoming sunlight is concentrated onto a particular area, for example using mirrors, but there is no risk of this harming a person as the area would be most certainly out of bounds. Yet should you serendipitously manage to find your way onto such a farm, you would probably die of burns before you developed cancer.

It should be noted that these were not the only issues raised by the public – concerns over property values and impacts on the economy were also voiced. Still, in a society where climate change denial is unfortunately rife, a more sensible move would be to reassure, educate, and inform.

brianlux

Good article, polaris_x. That bit about solar panels vacuuming up the sun rays, hahaha!

But this does well illustrate ignorance about science. It also underscores the need for critical thinking and full awareness of the consequences of our action. For example, those of us who are in favor of developing alternative energy sources might assume the more solar farms the better, right? Not necessarily. Some of the larger solar farms being built or planned to be built in desert regions are very harmful to delicate desert ecology. Simply constructing these farms anywhere is unwise and will just transfer one problem on to the next.

The best solutions to energy needs that do not lead to increased global temperatures will need to include wise planning, reduced consumption of resources and a voluntary lowering of human population. If we don't do these things, we face our own extinction. If we really want to, we can solve the environmental problems we're created.

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

Good article, polaris_x. That bit about solar panels vacuuming up the sun rays, hahaha!

But this does well illustrate ignorance about science. It also underscores the need for critical thinking and full awareness of the consequences of our action. For example, those of us who are in favor of developing alternative energy sources might assume the more solar farms the better, right? Not necessarily. Some of the larger solar farms being built or planned to be built in desert regions are very harmful to delicate desert ecology. Simply constructing these farms anywhere is unwise and will just transfer one problem on to the next.

The best solutions to energy needs that do not lead to increased global temperatures will need to include wise planning, reduced consumption of resources and a voluntary lowering of human population. If we don't do these things, we face our own extinction. If we really want to, we can solve the environmental problems we're created.

Brian how does the ecology get damaged in a desert? I know we couldn't build in the Mojave for a year because of a tortoise. Once the area was made tortoise proof and the offending tortoise was caught we could build again.

I figured the desert to have a very low impact?

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

Good article, polaris_x. That bit about solar panels vacuuming up the sun rays, hahaha!

But this does well illustrate ignorance about science. It also underscores the need for critical thinking and full awareness of the consequences of our action. For example, those of us who are in favor of developing alternative energy sources might assume the more solar farms the better, right? Not necessarily. Some of the larger solar farms being built or planned to be built in desert regions are very harmful to delicate desert ecology. Simply constructing these farms anywhere is unwise and will just transfer one problem on to the next.

The best solutions to energy needs that do not lead to increased global temperatures will need to include wise planning, reduced consumption of resources and a voluntary lowering of human population. If we don't do these things, we face our own extinction. If we really want to, we can solve the environmental problems we're created.

Brian how does the ecology get damaged in a desert? I know we couldn't build in the Mojave for a year because of a tortoise. Once the area was made tortoise proof and the offending tortoise was caught we could build again.

I figured the desert to have a very low impact?

A number of ways, Tempo. Large solar arrays alter the flow of water in the desert and divert it into culverts which alter the types and size of plant growth. More roads (constructed to build solar farms) damage soils and disrupt wild life. Desert plants which hold soils in place are removed to build the solar arrays and this cause more dust which reduces photosynthesis in plants that remain. Biotic crusts which are composed of cyanobacteria and lichens are destroyed simply by walking on them so so can see how roads and construction would do far more damage to them. These crust hold the soil in place and there loss will cause great dust storms.

Desert life is very delicate and easily damaged. We don't know the full effects of disrupting such life. People often think of deserts as mere wastelands but if you spend time in a healthy desert you begin to understand that it thrives with a life and a life and marvelous beauty of its own. Deserts should never be written off as wastelands.

Google "how solar farms harm desert ecology" or something to that effect and you'll find several articles that explain all this in greater detail.

tempo_n_groove

We didn't get much rain in the Mojave desert to grow much of anything. Lots of sage and Joshua trees though.

The desert is a harsh place. The winds are constantly blowing the dirt around so I don't see how walking on it disturbs it. It's not like it's a stalagmite and dies on contact?

I have fond memories of the desert. Had a lot of fun there.

There's a huge solar field out by 395. Place is huge and the desert plants still grow and the rattlers are still there and the rabbits are abundant and the coyotes are still hunting them.

I'll check out the article and thanks.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

We didn't get much rain in the Mojave desert to grow much of anything. Lots of sage and Joshua trees though.

The desert is a harsh place. The winds are constantly blowing the dirt around so I don't see how walking on it disturbs it. It's not like it's a stalagmite and dies on contact?

I have fond memories of the desert. Had a lot of fun there.

There's a huge solar field out by 395. Place is huge and the desert plants still grow and the rattlers are still there and the rabbits are abundant and the coyotes are still hunting them.

I'll check out the article and thanks.

Yes, deserts are harsh places, brutal even in some ways. But that makes them no less beautiful and important. I've spent a lot of time in the Sonoran Desert and the Great Basin- many of my most memorable outdoor experiences are in these desert regions. These are magnificent places that are being ruthlessly destroyed. Doing so is yet another example of human ignorance and destructive anthropocentric thinking. Sad, really sad.

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

We didn't get much rain in the Mojave desert to grow much of anything. Lots of sage and Joshua trees though.

The desert is a harsh place. The winds are constantly blowing the dirt around so I don't see how walking on it disturbs it. It's not like it's a stalagmite and dies on contact?

I have fond memories of the desert. Had a lot of fun there.

There's a huge solar field out by 395. Place is huge and the desert plants still grow and the rattlers are still there and the rabbits are abundant and the coyotes are still hunting them.

I'll check out the article and thanks.

Yes, deserts are harsh places, brutal even in some ways. But that makes them no less beautiful and important. I've spent a lot of time in the Sonoran Desert and the Great Basin- many of my most memorable outdoor experiences are in these desert regions. These are magnificent places that are being ruthlessly destroyed. Doing so is yet another example of human ignorance and destructive anthropocentric thinking. Sad, really sad.

Those places are being destroyed by what? Very curious.

I do believe that the desert is one of the most beautiful places on earth too Brian.

I've watched things be built and still watched the desert thrive. There are millions of acres that are untouched. The solar panels make excellent hiding spots for some of the animals. They also catch seeds and vegetation will grow around them. Nothing grows too tall in the desert. Think of the abandoned Derrick's in the ocean. They have done wonderful things for the ecosystem.

Solar wind and hydro power are excellent ways to get us off of carbon. I'd like to see more power harvested from the ocean though.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

We didn't get much rain in the Mojave desert to grow much of anything. Lots of sage and Joshua trees though.

The desert is a harsh place. The winds are constantly blowing the dirt around so I don't see how walking on it disturbs it. It's not like it's a stalagmite and dies on contact?

I have fond memories of the desert. Had a lot of fun there.

There's a huge solar field out by 395. Place is huge and the desert plants still grow and the rattlers are still there and the rabbits are abundant and the coyotes are still hunting them.

I'll check out the article and thanks.

Yes, deserts are harsh places, brutal even in some ways. But that makes them no less beautiful and important. I've spent a lot of time in the Sonoran Desert and the Great Basin- many of my most memorable outdoor experiences are in these desert regions. These are magnificent places that are being ruthlessly destroyed. Doing so is yet another example of human ignorance and destructive anthropocentric thinking. Sad, really sad.

Those places are being destroyed by what? Very curious.

I do believe that the desert is one of the most beautiful places on earth too Brian.

I've watched things be built and still watched the desert thrive. There are millions of acres that are untouched. The solar panels make excellent hiding spots for some of the animals. They also catch seeds and vegetation will grow around them. Nothing grows too tall in the desert. Think of the abandoned Derrick's in the ocean. They have done wonderful things for the ecosystem.

Solar wind and hydro power are excellent ways to get us off of carbon. I'd like to see more power harvested from the ocean though.

Yeah, some of those ocean turbines look promising if they can be built without causing harm to marine life.

ldent42

I heard the wind farms kill birds though.
I'm not a fan of killing birds. (except chickens, because they are delicious).

+1 on the ocean power. Kinda feels like we are ignoring (other than destroying) a potentially huge resource.

eddiec

ldent42 said:

I heard the wind farms kill birds though.
I'm not a fan of killing birds. (except chickens, because they are delicious).

+1 on the ocean power. Kinda feels like we are ignoring (other than destroying) a potentially huge resource.

ldent42 said:

I heard the wind farms kill birds though.
I'm not a fan of killing birds. (except chickens, because they are delicious).

+1 on the ocean power. Kinda feels like we are ignoring (other than destroying) a potentially huge resource.

Wind farms kill a few thousand birds a year while cats kill about a million a year.
Edit: Sorry about the double quote.

polaris_x

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

ldent42

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

2003? Come on.

I'm not buying that the comparison to cats is a valid argument either. I mean that's a food chain thing ain't it? We're talking about migrating species flying into a blender. Plus I mean how hard could it be to cover the blades with mesh or some kind of grate the way regular fans have? But what do I know.

tempo_n_groove

ldent42 said:

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

2003? Come on.

I'm not buying that the comparison to cats is a valid argument either. I mean that's a food chain thing ain't it? We're talking about migrating species flying into a blender. Plus I mean how hard could it be to cover the blades with mesh or some kind of grate the way regular fans have? But what do I know.

I watched a special on the turbines that said the bird strikes aren't significant and that the birds would learn about them.

the turbines up in the tchehachapis and outside of Palm Springs have been there for 30 years and no one complained about them.

eddiec

ldent42 said:

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

2003? Come on.

I'm not buying that the comparison to cats is a valid argument either. I mean that's a food chain thing ain't it? We're talking about migrating species flying into a blender. Plus I mean how hard could it be to cover the blades with mesh or some kind of grate the way regular fans have? But what do I know.

I saw a recent report on this. I believe somebody posted it on here somewhere. Some climate change denier gave some exaggerated figure on how many birds were killed by turbines. I'll try and find it. The cat reference was just to show that percentage wise turbines kill a very small amount.

PJfanwillneverleave1

.

polaris_x

ldent42 said:

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

2003? Come on.

I'm not buying that the comparison to cats is a valid argument either. I mean that's a food chain thing ain't it? We're talking about migrating species flying into a blender. Plus I mean how hard could it be to cover the blades with mesh or some kind of grate the way regular fans have? But what do I know.

it's not even in the top 9 here in canada ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/9-leading-causes-of-bird-deaths-in-canada-1.1873654

plus ... the biggest threat to birds is during migratory seasons ... you can turn the wind turbines off at night ... in any case - the death of birds has been grossly exaggerated ...

rgambs

I think some very serious things are going to need to be looked at to solve this problem. Population size and consumption habits are the big ones, and the hardest problems to deal with. Tough choices have to be made in how much a person is entitled to use and waste in a lifetime on this shared home.
In the meantime, we have to look at making some ecological sacrifices to preserve the places that are vital for survival and spiritual sustenance. I shake my head sometimes at entire ecosystems destroyed and poisoned to extract fossil fuels that could have been replaced by renewables, but weren't because of a single species. Hydro dams, solar farms, wind farms, they have all been shut down by environmentalism that was missing the big picture.
Tough choices ahead.

PJfanwillneverleave1

With all the talk of America having world influence you start to wonder if headlines like this are real? Taken from this article http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/13/one-word-derailed-paris-climate-change-summit/
I read about this earlier and just shook my head.
A serious document? Give me a break.
In previous draft agreements, the word “should” had been written in place of the word “shall”, however the latter appeared in the proposed final version.

But if “shall” was to sit in the wrong spot in the final agreement, some US legal advisors believed it would mean the deal would need congressional approval in the US – an almost impossible barrier to overcome because of the problem’s contentious nature there.

“Should” implied a moral obligation but did not compel a nation to do something, the advisers believed.

“Shall” meant there would be a legal obligation to undertake action

brianlux

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Yikes! Windows! I need to work on some of the ideas presented here:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/why-birds-hit-windows-and-how-you-can-help-prevent-it/

ldent42

tempo_n_groove said:

ldent42 said:

polaris_x said:

re: death of birds by wind mills

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

2003? Come on.

I'm not buying that the comparison to cats is a valid argument either. I mean that's a food chain thing ain't it? We're talking about migrating species flying into a blender. Plus I mean how hard could it be to cover the blades with mesh or some kind of grate the way regular fans have? But what do I know.

I watched a special on the turbines that said the bird strikes aren't significant and that the birds would learn about them.

the turbines up in the tehachapis and outside of Palm Springs have been there for 30 years and no one complained about them.

I legit Googled this cuz i thought you were making that name up.

Re: everyone else
Yea I get it. No one cares about birds. #BirdLivesMatter #exceptchickens