Rent Solar Panels

Renting solar panels allows people to have solar on their house without having to pay the big upfront cost of an installation.

Renting is the way its been for awhile for large-scale commercial installs, but now its available for everyone. Some of the huge advantages of renting solar panels include:

• no upfront installation cost
• guaranteed cost of power (more about this below)
• doing something good for the environment
• not having to deal with the paperwork and state incentives yourself

Altogether this is a great step in bringing affordable green power to the people and will hopefully make a dent in everyone’s carbon footprint.

So how exactly does it work?

Well the details vary by contract, but generally speaking a solar company pays for the panels and their installation – and then they sell you the power.  This is the same as getting your power from the grid and paying for it, except its actually originating from your roof!  Excess power can simply be fed into the grid.  Usually there is also a guarantee regarding the cost of power and it is mapped to the cost of power from the grid.

Click to see original photograph.

I for one hope to see solar panels on more homes in the near future, hopefully on a sunnier day than this one!

Carbon Neutral Flights

While doing some reading about green house gases I stumbled across the concept of “carbon neutral flights.”  First thing that came to my mind was that there had been a drastic improvement in aeronautics. Further reading indicated otherwise – carbon neutral flights are part of the carbon offset business.

Image links to the photographer

Carbon Offset – What’s that?

For those of you who haven’t heard about this new fashion, carbon offsetting is the concept of doing bad stuff to the environment in one place and then planting trees or purchasing renewable energy somewhere else.  The concept is sound in many ways; it acknowledges carbon emissions as a global problem with global solutions and attempts to quantify the problem and solve it.

Sounds Great! But be careful…

I saw a company offering to to make my last flight carbon neutral by building some wind turbines and sending me a hippie-feel-good package.  This set off a red flag for me.

Why do they need to send me a little packet certifying my recent flight as carbon neutral?

Why is there an option to customize it and add a name to turn it into a gift?

Why does it cost roughly $10? That can’t be right… especially not if they’re sending me a packet in the mail on top of everything!

If you’re going to reduce my carbon emissions, fine.  Don’t send me mail (in an airplane) and then deliver it to my house (in a truck) to make up for my airplane flight.  How about you send me a picture of these *alleged* wind turbines via e-mail instead now that you’ve got me suspicious?

Healthy Skepticism is a Must!

The concept seems legitimate, but I’d encourage anyone partaking in any form of carbon offset to take a critical look at the implementation of the particular offset itself.  The fact that people are trying to profit off this new industry comes as no surprise.

Dead Zones: Patches of Lifeless Ocean

Fertilizers, sewage, fossil-fuels flow into the oceans causing an artificially nutrient-rich patch of water.  Algae then grows rapidly and and the result is a patch of water with abnormally low oxygen.  So low in fact that a lot of marine life – particularly the things we eat – cannot survive.

From the description of the problem you can probably guess where most of these dead zones are located: coastal areas near farm land and the mouths of prominent rivers.

Mississippi River at Sunset

There’s a lot of ocean on this planet, and this problem is isolated to shorelines at the moment.  However shorelines happen to be vital for many types of crab, shrimp, and fish.  We won’t be able to just rely on going further out to sea; it would be inefficient to not preserve at least some of the most fertile coastal resources.

Noticeable Change CAN Happen Overnight – See China & Olympics

I was reading one of my favorite publications (national geographic) when I came across an article about China trying to reduce pollution right before the Olympics. China allegedly “shut down all nearby factories and ordered half the cars off the road.” The result was a 20-40 percent reduction in daily particulate matter compared to one year before. You can read the article itself here if you’d like: China’s Olympic Pollution Efforts Paid Off, Expert Says.

Well I wondered how bad it was, so I hit up flicker for some pictures of Beijing.

Beijing smog (2007, summer)Click the image to visit the photographer's Flickr page

Wow.

I looked at a few more pictures, and they all looked largely like this one. For those of you who haven’t seen anything like this before (like me) – that’s not fog, thats not rain, thats just how it looks all the time, its smog. But the point is, China reduced this pollution by up to 40 percent just for the Olympics! I always hear that positive environmental change is slow. Well here’s evidence otherwise.

Climate Change : Comparing Sources of Carbon Dioxide

Some would say the cause of climate change is up to debate… then again some would say that the existence of climate change is up to debate. Well its hardly a new topic at this point, and after reading numerous articles I just felt I had to share a few numbers.

Lets compare some figures for Carbon Dioxide emissions

• Personal vehciles – 618 million tons/year (2004)
• Deforestation – 2 billion tons/year (2005)
• Power generation – 10 billion tons/year (2007)

These numbers come from different years and different sources, but the shape of things is clear to see.

Power plants release a lot of CO2.

Cars on the other hand, despite getting A LOT of attention, release a somewhat pathetic amount of CO2 compared to the other major contenders. I’m not saying cars aren’t part of the problem – they most certainly are – all I’m saying is that cars are discussed disproportionately.

Deforestation carbon emissions seem quite disturbing to me, its lower than the emissions coming from power plants but lets not forget that trees have another role: trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. So not only is deforestation releasing a huge amount of CO2, but its killing the very things that could bail us out of this dilemma.

So much for buying a hybrid, I think I’ll plant some trees instead.

Sources:

auto emissions statistics: http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/autoemissions.htm

deforestation carbon emissions: http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1210-fao.html

carbon from power plants: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm

Tomato Recall: Some Info Please?

In June 2008 the FDA warned that there were potential health risks associated with tomatoes on account of salmonella contamination.  It wasn’t a real recall, but stores started pulling their tomatoes off the shelves.  It didn’t really affect me much, I ordered a veggie sub at Jimmy John’s during this “recall” and I must say it was quite lackluster.  That would’ve been the full extent of its effect on me, had I not made the mistake of watching TV one day.

A debate had been sparked about who’s FAULT it was: MEXICO, or USA?

Excuse me, but is that really important?  The USA gets a huge amount of produce from Mexico.  I’d be hard pressed to really call a tomato from Mexico a  “Mexican tomato.”  The tomatoes are being grown because people in the states buy them, and I really doubt its some sort of newly formed supply chain for our food.  I bet we (in the states) eat tomatoes from those same farms every year.  Its not a Mexican tomato, its a tomato destined to be eaten in Seattle, WA where I live.  So I’m not interested when the media wants to point fingers at Mexico and say, “it’s their fault!”  We’re in this together, they (Mexico) supply because we demand.  Any line drawn between that tomato and my mouth is purely arbitrary.  We have a problem with our food – and that’s what the media should report on.

Well TV had failed me as it always does, so I asked the glorious internet if it knew what was wrong with my tomatoes.  I cant say I was surprised so much as disappointed to not find an answer.  I read a solid hypothetical on http://www.slate.com/id/2193474/ stating that runoff from livestock pastures could infect an entire crop.  If that’s the case it doesn’t sound like our problems are ending, more likely they’ll be recurring and worse each year.

Solar Panels vs. Solar Shingles

Collective referred to as photovoltaics, solar panels and solar shingles offer the same technology in two different shapes.

So which is better?

Well it depends on a variety of factors such as where you live, if you’re building a new home or adding solar to an existing home.  There are some advantages to each, though these might not actually get to play into the decision…

Solar Shingle Advantages

• aesthetically mimics a roof (unlike bulky solar panels)
• not just a power source – solar shingles actually protect your house just like normal shingles

Solar Panel Advantages

• can be angled to face the sun
• can be added to existing structure without modifying the structure (usually)
• can be replaced without exposing the house beneath to the elements

To summarize, the chief advantage of solar shingles is that they look nice, whereas the chief advantage of solar panels is that you can just add them to whatever is there – which might not be the case for solar shingles.

Some of the Disadvantages

Much more likely to guide your decision when picking between these two technologies are the prerequisites. Solar shingles have a very more requirements than do panels.  Solar panels are often mounted on adjustable metal frames to keep them perpendicular to the sun.  Some people consider this ugly, but its also what makes them versatile.  Solar shingles on the other hand work better if the roof is at the right grade, which is something you could do if you’re building a new house, but might not be an affordable option if it involves changing an existing roof.  There’s also one more big requirement for solar shingles: they get hot, and the sub-roof needs to be able to handle the temperature change.

If you don’t mind how solar panels arrays look, then go with panels – it’ll be easier and likely cheaper.

If you’re worried about how your roof will look, or if you’re building a new roof from scratch then solar shingles become a good-looking option.

Eating Green – So Many Ways To Do It!

There are lots of ways that you can change your eating habits to make it better for the environment. Some are better than others and some require a great deal of trust on your part.

Eat Organic

This is the most popular choice for people and real organic food is great for both planet earth and you.

• Eat happily knowing you’re not consuming harmful pesticides
• No pesticides, hormones, or genetic engineering used on the crop or animals, reducing the amount of toxins being put into the earth by people
• Supporting farmers and ranchers who are doing the right thing

While these are all good things, they all come down to one thing, are the producers really organic or are they just saying they are? In the US the government has a poor reputation for enforcing the organic rules necessary for certification. The USDA has a web page dedicated to the national organic program, but they have so few employees and power that they’re more of a hopeful idea rather than a functioning wing of the government.

That sucks, so what can we do to get real organic food? Until laws actually become strict and enforced it’s probably not going to happen.

Eat Local

Farmer's Market

When you buy from a farmer’s market or local grocer you can much more easily poke your nose into other people’s business and find out if the produce or meat is really organic or not. Find out their harvesting practices, visit their farm and get to know the person who’s food you are eating! There really is no better way to know that your food truly is organic.

Besides being able to spot genuine organic easier local food has a bunch of other benefits:

• Local food doesn’t travel as far from production to consumption meaning less fossil fuels are burned
• The food is fresher because it can be harvested and delivered in a day or two
• You support your community by buying from farmers in your area
• You vote with your wallet and don’t help large grocers (Safeway, QFC, Walmart) who import food from far away.

Eat Less Meat

Meat was often seen as an ideal source of necessary vitamins and nutrients needed to lead a healthy life. And while I doubt I could ever give up meat, it’s important to recognize that eating rice and other grains are much more efficient at filling us up! 7 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water are required to make a pound of beef. So if you do like to eat meat, rather than giving it up completely, try to think of it as a type of food for a special occasion rather than an everyday meal!

Carbon Neutral Web Hosting

I’ve decided to take a scientific approach to weeding out the green scams from the real green ideas. Basically, I will attempt to disprove the environmental benefits of any given idea – and my hope is that I fail. I was looking for a webhost the other day when I stumbled over what seemed to be an audacious claim: carbon neutral webhosting. This reeked of scam to me right from the start. Its not like we’re talking about manufacturing cars or something legitimately industrial with large environmental implications… I mean they just have a computer running in a room somewhere right?

Well there’s no sense in just guessing let’s be scientific and do some research!

“The energy consumed by data center servers and related infrastructure equipment in the United States & worldwide doubled between 2000 and 2005.. the electricity consumption for data center servers in 2005 was equivalent to 14 power plants”

- http://www.thinkhost.com/socialchange/renewable-energy-hosting.shtml

Hmm.. Well that sounds impressive, but is it? Plus they’re in the “carbon neutral web hosting” business, we can’t just take their word. More research is needed.

Doing a few Google searches and following links from thinkhost.com yielded the original article http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197006210. To spare you having to read it yourself, I’ll summarize. Data Centers in 2005 were responsible for somewhere between 0.6% and 1.2% of power consumption in the United States. The article states that as being similar to the power consumed by all the color televisions in the United States. That sounds significant to me!  So as far as using wind and solar power to run web servers goes, I’m all for it.

But wait, using alternative power is not what most of these web hosts are about!  Reviewing http://www.webhostingbuzz.com/ I find yet another web host claiming to be carbon neutral, but with no mention of wind or solar power.  According to webhostingbuzz.com, they’re carbon neutral because they invest in tree plantation projects.  Well I wish they would’ve provided some more information on that topic, because in my research the word “plantation” means that trees will be planted and then cut down.  If the resulting timber is burned then I don’t see how that would be carbon neutral.

Well thats two menthods of claimed carbon neutrality: using alternative energy, and planting trees.  The third and apparently most common method is purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates, whereby a company offsets their power usage by paying for an equivalent amount of renewable energy to be fed back into the grid.  Here another webhost discusses their claim to being carbon neutral on account of Renewable Energy Certificates http://www.drak.net/about/green.html.

I set out to prove that carbon neutral web hosting was a ploy – yet another scam marketed towards those of us who want change.  Much to my surprise I’ve found some real legitmacey to carbon neutral web hosting.  My new opinion: carbon neutral web hosting, it couldn’t hurt.

Green: Did someone miss the point?

Green this, green that, reduce your carbon footprint!  This website has a 0 emissions carbon footprint!  Get a solar panel business tie!  Buy our green SUV!

Wait, WHAT?!

It seems as of late that green is going through an identity crisis – or perhaps identity theft.  To some green represents environmentalism and a general movement towards more sustainable practices.  However, living in the United States I find myself far too conscious of the more common usage of the word green: money.

Let’s address the topic of green SUVs.  They don’t exist yet.

“Oh but it’s the improvement that is important! Green SUVs get better gas mileage than conventional SUVs we can’t fault them for trying to improve.”

Sure, and if I’m a store owner and I double all my prices one day and the next day I put a “50% OFF” sign up, then I must be having a sale.  But it doesn’t make my stuff cheap.  Making a horrible gas-guzzling vehicle and then making it suck less, does not yield you a vehicle worthy of the title “green.”  The only thing green about these SUVs is the money being collected.

Anything that makes money is susceptible to this type of abuse, even things that might legitimately be green in one form or another.  Check out this article written in March detailing the dumping of highly toxic solar panel byproducts in China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html