Cry of the Redwoods

[George]

A California court ordered the termination of two Redwoods (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/29/redwoods.vs.solar.ap/)in order to eliminate the shade cast upon a neighbor's solar panel.

Besides the fact that living trees (Redwoods!) must be sacrificed for solar energy, it strikes me odd that in this case there may be little to be gained. The electric power needed to cool a house that is not shaded probably can not be generated by the Solar panels. A house becomes much hotter without shade. This may not be true in this case since the picture shows a large portion of the roof is covered by the panels that do provide shade themselves. I would be curious how much more net energy savings is gained by the chainsaw execution, if any.

[01101001]

San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8063034), with aerial photograph. (I don't know if CNN is reporting old status from then, or after an appeal decision the defendants planned, or if they didn't actually appeal.)

"It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It's that our state's leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence," said Ken Rosenblatt, supervising Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for environmental protection.

[Paranoia]

it strikes me odd that in this case there may be little to be gained. The electric power needed to cool a house that is not shaded probably can not be generated by the Solar panels. A house becomes much hotter without shade.

Sometimes the simplest solutions elude people???

[mugaliens]

I'm not much of a tree-hugger. If the redwoods were just a few years old, I would understand. If they were thousands of years old, it would be a shame, as there's little sane justification for cutting down any old-growth forests.

Why not just move the solar panel??? Electricity does travel over these fantastic inventions known as "copper wires."

And if the solar panels were for the heating of water, there are ways to handle that issue, too.

[korjik]

These are freakin redwoods. Did the guy with the solar panels think that they would stay short? Leave it to California to cut down redwoods cause some fool didnt take their growth into account.

I am suprised that the logging companies havent started putting up panels so they can cut the trees when they grow.

[sarongsong]

...Leave it to California to cut down redwoods cause some fool didnt take their growth into account...California has priors:June 1976
Ronald Reagan (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/reagan/redwoods.asp) Redwood Memorial Grove dedicated near 101 off ramp to 14th street.
Humboldt State University (http://library.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/archives/chronology.html)...consists of the one redwood remaining after its nearby mates were felled in the name of progress.

[01101001]

These are freakin redwoods. Did the guy with the solar panels think that they would stay short?

I expect the guy thought his neighbors could and would keep their redwoods trimmed in accordance with state law.

I've got redwood bonsai. They don't inevitably reach 100 meters in height. (Google image search redwood bonsai (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&q=redwood+bonsai))

I do wish the law would be changed. But I also don't blame the guy for asking that it be enforced for his benefit.

[korjik]

I expect the guy thought his neighbors could and would keep their redwoods trimmed in accordance with state law.

I've got redwood bonsai. They don't inevitably reach 100 meters in height. (Google image search redwood bonsai (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&q=redwood+bonsai))

I do wish the law would be changed. But I also don't blame the guy for asking that it be enforced for his benefit.

I guess my question is: Did he check with his neighbors as to their intentions before he put the panels in?

Law or no law, it seems quite rude to force the trees to be removed cause he couldnt be bothered to take the trees into account beforhand. Even worse if he knew the law and decided to just screw his neighbors.

[Van Rijn]

I guess my question is: Did he check with his neighbors as to their intentions before he put the panels in?

Law or no law, it seems quite rude to force the trees to be removed cause he couldnt be bothered to take the trees into account beforhand. Even worse if he knew the law and decided to just screw his neighbors.

According to the article (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8063034):

Their neighbor Mark Vargas considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills. He drives an electric car.

Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards. Later, he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.

"I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let's try to work something out," Vargas said. "They said no to everything."

He installed the panels.

I suspect there were problems between the neighbors before this. But, anyway, I'm not sure we should so quickly dismiss access to sunlight on one's own property. With PV becoming more important, should your neighbor be able to block off your sunlight when they feel like it? It seems to me that this could be an important property right.

[Tuckerfan]

I suspect there were problems between the neighbors before this. But, anyway, I'm not sure we should so quickly dismiss access to sunlight on one's own property. With PV becoming more important, should your neighbor be able to block off your sunlight when they feel like it? It seems to me that this could be an important property right.
Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.:D

[Van Rijn]

Yes, I started thinking about the Simpsons when I read the article. I don't know if the neighbor was a smart version of Monty, but it's possible. :)

[mugaliens]

I am suprised that the logging companies havent started putting up panels so they can cut the trees when they grow.

Interesting point! Spark the debate.

I think that the point that should be addressed is "how old was that redwood"?

I think you'll find that the redwoods in question were just a few years old.

It was more of an exercise in journalistic marketing than it was an exercise in either journalistic integrity or truth.

And a very poor job on the part of the journalist.

[mugaliens]

With PV becoming more important, should your neighbor be able to block off your sunlight when they feel like it? It seems to me that this could be an important property right.

Good question!

Yes, sunlight is an important property right when it has value.

And the debating answer is that trees can be planted anywhere, including places which don't obscure sunlight.

[Donnie B.]

It's slightly off-topic, but a recent study has shown that current solar panels are far better than they used to be in terms of overall energy payback.

A few decades ago, it cost almost as much energy to build the panels as they produced over their lifetime. Now with improved materials and production techniques, it requires only 2% to 11% of their eventual energy output to make them. In other words, PVs now make very good sense from a carbon-emissions standpoint.

I wonder what the comparison would be between the carbon savings of the PV panels vs. the carbon sequestration of the trees being removed. I'll bet the solar panels win hands down. (Of course, trees have value beyond being mere carbon sinks. I'll bet one big reason they were planted was as a privacy screen. Then there are issues of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, shade, wind break, and suchlike.)

[HenrikOlsen]

<snip> I'll bet one big reason they were planted was as a privacy screen. Then there are issues of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, shade, wind break, and suchlike.)
As a privacy screen the trees probably wouldn't need to grow beyond 15 feet.
Ditto for windbreak.
As for shade, the whole point of the matter was that it was the neighbor who got it, and he didn't want it:)

[mugaliens]

I don't know how to double-quote this, so, Donnie B you're up: "It's slightly off-topic, but a recent study has shown that current solar panels are far better than they used to be in terms of overall energy payback.

A few decades ago, it cost almost as much energy to build the panels as they produced over their lifetime. Now with improved materials and production techniques, it requires only 2% to 11% of their eventual energy output to make them. In other words, PVs now make very good sense from a carbon-emissions standpoint.[/quote]

That's an important point to keep in mind here, folks, particularly with the availability of rooftop solar systems.[/quote]

I wonder what the comparison would be between the carbon savings of the PV panels vs. the carbon sequestration of the trees being removed. I'll bet the solar panels win hands down. (Of course, trees have value beyond being mere carbon sinks. I'll bet one big reason they were planted was as a privacy screen. Then there are issues of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, shade, wind break, and suchlike.)"

As a privacy screen the trees probably wouldn't need to grow beyond 15 feet.
Ditto for windbreak.
As for shade, the whole point of the matter was that it was the neighbor who got it, and he didn't want it:)

Yeah, a 15 ft windbreak sort of stinks. Way too short.

By the way, folks - I'm speaking faciously.

Please be kindly.

Still, this continues to raise the question of one's real nature.

I'm off for now (bathroom break).

Ok. Don't have anything more to add.

[mugaliens]

A few decades ago, it cost almost as much energy to build the panels as they produced over their lifetime. Now with improved materials and production techniques, it requires only 2% to 11% of their eventual energy output to make them. In other words, PVs now make very good sense from a carbon-emissions standpoint.

Excellent point - well represenented.

I wonder what the comparison would be between the carbon savings of the PV panels vs. the carbon sequestration of the trees being removed. I'll bet the solar panels win hands down. (Of course, trees have value beyond being mere carbon sinks. I'll bet one big reason they were planted was as a privacy screen. Then there are issues of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, shade, wind break, and suchlike.)

I think if every home roof were covered in PV panels we'd probably have solved the "energy crisis" long ago.

We're really not all that smart, are we?de413.6

The last seven characters are evidence of the stack of DVDs falling on me, so not, I guess we're really not that smart!

By the way: Ouch.

[Donnie B.]

As a privacy screen the trees probably wouldn't need to grow beyond 15 feet.
Ditto for windbreak.
As for shade, the whole point of the matter was that it was the neighbor who got it, and he didn't want it:)
I kind of mixed generalities and specifics in that parenthetic remark. The part that starts "Then there are..." was intended to be about trees in general. I was trying to prevent anybody from getting the idea that I thought the only valid measuring stick for trees vs. PVs was the carbon footprint.

Let me rephrase:
(Of course, trees have value beyond being mere carbon sinks. I'll bet one big reason they were planted in this instance was as a privacy screen. But in general there are also issues of aesthetics, wildlife habitat, shade, wind break, and suchlike that come down on the tree side of the ledger.)

[Donnie B.]

We're really not all that smart, are we?de413.6

The last seven characters are evidence of the stack of DVDs falling on me... Ouch.
Heheh. Reminds me of a strange event in my life years ago. For reasons no one ever figured out, I had a brief blackout at work. I was at the computer and my unconscious head landed on the keyboard. When I came around, the file I was editing included several pages of autotyped characters.

Scary at the time, as you can imagine. Never happened again, thank the FSM.

[01101001]

Done deal.

New York Times: Trees Block Solar Panels, and a Feud Ends in Court (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/science/earth/07redwood.html)

A few weeks after The San Jose Mercury News wrote about the situation, the first act ended with the couple pruning 10 feet to 15 feet of Tree No. 6’s upper branches. The event drew more cameras than an episode of “Extreme Home Makeover.”

Looks like a poodle cut -- bare in the middle with a nob at the top. I hope that was in-process. I saw television pictures of the finished job and the tree(s) looked simply shortened.

To avoid future problems, [state senator Joe] Simitian has introduced a bill to ensure that trees planted before solar panels are installed have a right to grow in peace.
[...]
Meanwhile, Senator Simitian’s bill is headed for a committee vote this month. It determines when trees can grow amid solar panels (if they are planted ahead of time) and when they cannot (if they are planted after a solar-panel is installed). The state, Mr. Simitian pointed out, has a law to encourage the construction of one million solar roofs. “I’m trying to avoid a million neighborhood arguments,” he said.