Clearing Snow off Solar Panels

 

When our solar panels were installed last summer, I didn’t think a whole lot about what would happen to them in the winter. I suppose I thought that snow would just slide right off, and we wouldn’t need to worry about them. Not quite. Now that the winter of 2020-2021 is raging, I would like to share a little of what I’ve learned.

Snow doesn’t always ‘slide right off.’ It does indeed slide off easier than it does from the asphalt shingles on the rest of the roof. And when there’s just a thin layer, it melts faster on the panels than it does on the rest of the roof. But if the snow is heavy, or if it turns to ice, it can last for a while on the panels. Is it worth the trouble to try to clear them off?

I gave this a little thought and also did a bit of research. On a bright winter day, the panels may produce power that’s worth a couple of dollars; perhaps three at most. Of course, it all depends on the panels’ angle, length of daylight hours, amount of cloudiness, etc. It also depends on how many panels you have. Then you need to multiply those three bucks by the number of days that the panels will retain their heavy snow covering. I decided to try to clear them off and purchased a “Snow Broom with 15 Ft Stainless Steel Heavy Duty Connecting Pole” from Amazon.

Although the foam head is light, and the stainless steel handle sections are light, when fully extended, the whole thing becomes awkward and difficult to use. I learned that I needed to still stand on a step ladder with the entire extended length to reach the highest panels. The ladder is mostly to provide the best leverage. I also learned that I need to clear the lower areas first, then work my way higher. As good as it all works, the work is very difficult. I become exhausted after just a few minutes.

I will say that it feels good to have the panels cleared off. But the work is so hard, I still wonder whether it’s worth it.

President Biden's Environmental Policies, So Far

President Biden has unleashed a flurry of executive orders related to the environment in general and climate change in particular. The most prominent of these is the United States’ commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. Many of the initiatives were to reverse Trump’s policies, some of which, in turn, were to undo Obama-era rules. Why all the back and forth? What does it mean to most Americans?

An executive order is a method of issuing federal directives in the United States to manage operations of the federal government. This includes the determination of how legislation is to be enforced, and other actions relating to emergencies and other policy. Although they are constitutionally legal unless reversed by the judicial branch, executive orders can be revoked by future presidents or acts of congress. Laws passed by congress are held to a higher standard according to the constitution and are more difficult to reverse.

According to Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, “President Biden has called climate change the No. 1 issue facing humanity. He understands all too well that meeting this test requires nothing less than a full-scale mobilization of American government, business, and society.” The executive order to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement (which will enable the U.S. to hold polluters like China and India accountable) is only the first step. Biden’s other orders stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion (which would have encouraged yet more Canadian oil sands extraction) and halt new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. They would not (and could not) stop other fossil fuel drilling.

With the understanding that the climate crisis is an overriding concern, Biden’s policies are the best way to address it at this point. Legislation to affirm these initiatives as well as to position the United States to regain our lost leadership in economic development, especially relating to renewable energy, must follow. Loss of jobs in fossil fuel production will be small compared with the substantial gains afforded by the innovation and creativity of a future-facing economy based on clean energy. Naturally, the question is, how can we move forward on something this important.

First, we need to recognize that although the climate may be mankind’s greatest challenge, it’s not the most immediate one. The Biden Administration must get the Coronavirus Pandemic under control. It’s gratifying to know that they’ve begun to take steps and to ‘own’ the problem. Although some environmental progress isn’t dependent on whether or not the pandemic is under control (and we can do two things at once), the problem is mostly one of perception.

Second, we will need to convince members of the Republican party to support such legislation. This is the heavy-lift part. The planet itself is lending urgency. Last year was the hottest year on record, the years from 2010 through 2019 make up the hottest decade ever. The irreversible effects of climate change have wreaked havoc across the globe, from devastating wildfires in Australia and California to rising sea levels, stronger storms, and widespread droughts.

Still not convinced? BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute all issued statements of support for President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris Accord. So did the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. It seems that they welcome the regulation and the environmental stability that comes with good economic policy. Republicans should too.

The Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy

 

The generation of electrical power accounts for over 40 percent of the earth’s greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates a significant percentage of water and other air pollution. Therefore, the conversion to clean, renewable methods of power generation ought to be of utmost importance. In fact, due to revolutionary technical innovation and related economic factors, the changeover is happening now at an astounding speed. Coincidentally or not, this is also happening at a time when cities and countries around the world are pledging to move to net-zero emissions - to become 100% carbon-free within a few decades. As the United States rejoins to the Paris Climate Accord, we will likely see a more coordinated approach to clean energy commitments.

Is the effort worthwhile? In the vein of “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” we need to inquire about any possible ‘negative’ impact to the environment posed by renewable energy. Is it possible that we are only trading one type of pollution with another? There most certainly are at least some costs that need to be considered. What are they, how do they compare with the costs of using fossil fuels, and can they be mitigated?

Environmental Cost of Renewable Energy

Renewables include hydropower, geothermal, biomass, tidal power, as well as wind and solar power. Although hydroelectric energy makes up a huge percentage of the total renewable sources, the vast majority of the growth is from wind and solar sources. Since those two represent the future of energy production, we will concentrate on them.

Wind turbines pose a threat to birds and bats. There is some concern about some parts of the turbines – notably the blades – that are not recyclable once they have completed their life-cycle. In some cases, the large blades are taking up space in landfills.

Solar power can result in habitat loss as well as the use of some hazardous materials. Large solar arrays can displace native plant and animal habitats and use large amounts of water. Disposal of solar panels can be another source of pollution. Solar panels often contain cadmium, lead, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel.

Renewable Environmental Cost vs Fossil Fuel Environmental Cost

An article in ‘The Conversation’ evaluates whether green energy has hidden health and environmental costs. There are references to studies showing that although no energy source is without adverse environmental side effects, fossil fuels place the heaviest burden on the environment; most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related impacts on ecosystems and human health. Other studies have been published showing similar results. The conclusions are unmistakable.

Considering the overall environmental impact of wind and solar sources (even the waste) versus that of burning fossil fuels or nuclear power, the score isn’t even close. Yes, there is indeed environmental consequence from renewables; the costs are noted here and elsewhere. But wind and solar produce nearly zero greenhouse gases, and their overall environmental footprint is significantly lower than the burning of fossil fuels.

Nuclear power generation also generates no carbon dioxide but is not truly renewable. Furthermore, it causes pollution in terms of spent fuel, which, even after 60 years of use, is still not being properly and safely stored or disposed of.

Wind and solar win the environmental competition by a landslide.

How to Mitigate Renewable Environmental Pollution

Even though we’ve seen that renewable energy sources are clean relative to nuclear and the burning of fossil fuels, we’ve also acknowledged that they’re not without environmental consequence. Now that the impact has been identified, what can we do to reduce or eliminate it?

For wind power, siting is everything. To prevent as much loss as possible, wind farms should be kept away from major bird and bat migratory routes. This is being done with increasing success. Wind turbines should be constructed with the prospect of recycling in mind, and this too is in the works.

Photovoltaic and other solar energy components also need to be constructed and disposed of more sustainably. One solution is to include a fee on solar panel purchases to ensure that the cost of safely removing, recycling, or storing solar panel waste is incorporated into the price of solar panels. In addition, the federal or state government should enforce existing laws regarding the decommissioning of solar panels so that they do not end up in landfills. Finally, solar and all e-waste should be monitored at a global level. Strict regulation is key.

The entire life-cycle of any energy source should be considered when weighing economic and environmental factors. We need to be vigilant to ensure that we’re not creating new and additional ways to harm the environment. The good news is that renewables cause far less harm than alternatives and that they’re still improving.

Open Letter to Mike DeWine, Robert Cupp, and Larry Obhof

 

Open Letter to Messrs Mike DeWine, Ohio Governor, Robert Cupp, Speaker of Ohio House, Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President

The State of Ohio is undergoing yet another embarrassment as Sam Randazzo has stepped down from his position as Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). At the time of this writing, it is not known whether or how much this may be related to the scandal where House Speaker Larry Householder and four political associates were arrested on federal racketeering charges involving $61 million in bribes tied to the nuclear subsidies for House Bill 6 (HB 6). But it sure looks that way. And it sure looks awful for the State of Ohio, the Ohio Legislature, and the Ohio Executive branch.

Mr. Randazzo was appointed by Governor DeWine and approved by the Ohio Legislature. He has a long record of supporting dirty fossil fuels and hindering all attempts to install renewable energy. As a result, Ohio’s reputation as a haven for dirty energy and pollution has continued to worsen. Now its reputation as a seat of corruption continues as well. Worst of all, HB 6 is still on the books.

HB 6 was a terrible law for the people of Ohio right from the beginning. As you know, HB 6 seeks to bail out FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants by forcing virtually every Ohioan to pay a surcharge. It also removes renewable energy standards that would have helped keep Ohio cleaner and greener. The law has been called the worst energy bill of the 21st century.

This law is bad for the health (since it also removes some environmental protection) and welfare (since it requires all to pay for a bailout) of Ohioans. It needs to be repealed immediately.

The repeal needs to be complete. Previous hearings since the scandal have demonstrated spineless equivocation by the Ohio Legislature. Let us be clear: there is no justification for not repealing it in its entirety. Once that is complete, the Ohio Legislature should begin to draft legislation to help correct Ohio’s filthy, pollution-causing energy policy. Clean, renewable energy standards and policies work for other states. They will work in Ohio too. Furthermore, any corrective action should be funded solely by FirstEnergy stockholders and not everyday Ohioans as a bailout.

Of course, the Ohio Legislature will need to do most of the work to repeal and remove this bad law. But Governor DeWine needs to provide the leadership to get this done. Please do it quickly. Ohio cannot wait.

Insurance and Support of Fossil Fuel

Are you shopping for home, auto, or other insurance? I was, and I nearly purchased some from Safeco, which is part of Liberty Mutual Insurance. From aRolling Stone article and other sources, I learned that Liberty Mutual provides indispensable insurance to TC Energy (a fossil fuel infrastructure company) in order to enable construction of the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline, which would carry extracted tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. It appears that Big Oil, Big Money (some large banks are still bankrolling oil), and Big Insurance work in unison to prop up the fossil fuel economy at the expense of climate change.

 

According to Reuters, a group of about 60 American businesses recently urged their insurers to stop providing coverage to and investment in the fossil fuel industry. They said in part, “The insurance industry is underwriting and investing in fossil fuels which we now know are the key drivers of climate change. As insurance customers, we are therefore expressing our desire for insurance coverage in the U.S. market that isn’t tied to supporting fossil fuels and actively supports renewable energy.” Insurers targeted in the letter include American International Group Inc, Axis Capital, Chubb Ltd, Hartford Financial Services, and Liberty Mutual.

 

I decided that I did not want any profits Liberty Mutual made from my purchase to be used to finance fossil fuel companies. I shopped some more and purchased from another insurance company. If you are in the market for insurance, please consider the climate-related track record of the company you’re buying from.

 

While you weren’t paying attention

 

There are no permanent victories in the environmental business ~ Bill McKibben

That the coronavirus pandemic sucks all the oxygen out of the room should surprise no one. It garners nearly all our attention these days, leaving little room for concern about other matters. The Trump Administration has chosen to use this health and economic crisis as an opportunity to further erode and dismantle our nation’s environmental protection without as much scrutiny as these actions would have otherwise caused.

In just the past week, the Administration made announcements about two decisions that will prove disastrous to Alaska’s otherwise nearly pristine environment. First, it will start selling drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area of environmental concern and contention for decades. Second, it will proceed to allow building the Pebble Mine to extract gold, copper, and other metals on the headwaters of the streams that feed the world’s premier salmon run area, Bristol Bay.

Why should we care? The pandemic is, rightly, of utmost importance. We surely do need to pay heed to all important developments; our health, even our lives, may be at stake. But the environment will be with us always. Trump’s rape of it is not only continuing, but even accelerating while our attention is diverted.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been an area of environmental protection for more than fifty years. It is the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States. Trump has considered Arctic drilling as foremost in importance to his initiative to expand domestic fossil fuel production on federal lands. The ANWR spans 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. The drilling would occur on 1.5 million acres in the refuge’s coastal plain, which is believed to contain large onshore reserves of oil and gas. It would upset already vulnerable and even endangered wildlife. Once the drilling begins, it cannot be undone.

The Pebble Mine permit from the Trump administration comes despite concerns from environmentalists that it will severely damage Alaska’s world-renowned sockeye (and chinook, coho, chum, and pink) salmon fishery in nearby Bristol Bay. Earlier, Trump had ordered logging protections removed from nearby Tongass National Forest. It is the largest temperate rainforest on planet Earth.

There is some hope, although more action will surely be needed. Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, are taking legal action to try to stop the plunder. Also, it is not clear how much interest there will be from energy companies at a time when oil prices are low, and many countries are trying to wean themselves from fossil fuels. Furthermore, banks may be unwilling to finance the effort. Regarding the Pebble Mine, local opposition centers on the fact that the mine will destroy the way of life afforded to Alaska’s fishing community. Even Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr., who agree with the President on most issues, reportedly oppose the mine. Yes, there may be hope.

Most importantly, we all need to continue to pay attention, even amid the pandemic, when this Administration continues and even accelerates its plans to destroy our nation’s environmental protection.

Governor DeWine, tear down this law

Open Letter to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine:

Governor DeWine, tear down this law. House Bill 6 was a terrible law for the people of Ohio right from the beginning. With the recent indictments, we are now aware of how awful it truly is. It needs to be repealed immediately.

Your response to the pandemic, although uneven, has proven you to be passionate about the health and welfare of Ohioans. Your record on environmental matters is uneven and more concerning. You supported measures to prevent harmful algal blooms due to pollution in Lake Erie, but you also appointed a clean energy critic to lead the Public Utilities Commission as well as the Ohio Power Siting Board. This person has created the ‘poison pill’ to thwart longstanding attempts to create renewable energy in Lake Erie.

You also supported HB 6. As you know, HB 6 seeks to bail out FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants by forcing virtually every Ohioan to pay a surcharge.

We now understand that FirstEnergy was the source of $61 million funneled through a nonprofit group to maintain the alleged criminal conspiracy. In fact, it was “a conspiracy to pass and maintain a $1.6 billion bailout in exchange for $61 million in dark money,” U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers. Finally, some of the money was allegedly used to line the pockets of Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and some associates.

Governor DeWine, this law is bad for the health (since it also removes some environmental protection) and welfare (since it requires all to pay for a bailout) of Ohioans. You recently said, “Because people did bad things does not mean the policy is not a good policy.” I strongly disagree. People did bad things precisely because HB 6 was bad policy that would otherwise not have become law. You also note that nuclear energy does not contribute to climate change. This is true, but the coal plant bailout and stripping of other environmental protection that are included in the bill do. Furthermore, any bailout should be funded solely by FirstEnergy stockholders and not everyday Ohioans.

Of course, the Ohio Legislature will need to do most of the work to repeal and remove this bad law. But you, Governor DeWine need to provide the leadership to get this done. Please do it quickly.