Comments on: Good Idea? Bad Idea?

By: Domestic Solar Power

Domestic Solar Power — Sat, 23 May 2009 04:00:56 +0000

Domestic Solar Power…

I would like to subscribe to this blog – Microgeneration at Hattix. How to go about doing it?…

By: Lo

Lo — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:23:59 +0000

While the ideas seem very similar on the surface, there’s enough difference that I approve of one and not the other. The environmental concerns listed by others, as well as the abundance of roof space for solar panels makes the Scotland project seem risky. There’s an unknown environmental risk, and if there’s a readily available alternative, why bother?

At the winery, on the other hand, there is no other available space – thus the choice for floating panels. The water used is not a natural stream, but a man-made irrigation system on land the winery owns. While there is undoubtedly some wildlife living there as well, it’s not key habitat for an existing ecosystem and therefore while the risk is the same, the “stakes” are lower, if you will.

Both projects are at least attempting to address large unsolved problems, which is admirable in any case!

By: Scott Lansing

Scott Lansing — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:49:29 +0000

From the image in the post, the idea looks cool and innovative, but is there any chance that the silicon used to produce the photovoltaic panels can seep out of the device and into the water? Would this damage plant and wildlife in the vicinity of such a leak?

This reminds my of the buoys used to create wave energy; great idea, probably not harmful to surrounding wildlife because we already have buoys, but is an increase in the number of these flotation devices receding the shoreline? The plankton that grows on the bottoms of these buoys may attract fish, eventually diverting a preexisting food chain by elevating the depths at which predators search for food. Birds may also be distracted, fly into the devices, and drown.

While posting all of these “what ifs” puts a downer on the quest for alternative energy practices, it is important to consider every outcome imaginable so we can avoid new/additional environmental concern. I honestly think floating solar panels, buoys and wind turbines take up a great deal of space, but it’s worth it, and we have the space to make the change. Besides, they look better than clumping power lines and towers you see in neighborhoods, parks and city centers.

By: James Bishop

James Bishop — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:11:04 +0000

On a global level we have harmed the planet and now need to figure out was to either fix or mitigate the damage before it is too late. Moreover, governments and organizations need to create protocols and enforce the same so that we begin to change our habits. One example of such efforts is the Kyoto Protocol, which is a document which sets forth a plan to reduce four green house gases. However, the Protocol will only be successful if countries decide to participate and unfortunately the United States is not one of the countries ratifying the Protocol. Hopefully, the next Administration will be different and place a greater emphasis on the environment.

Please have a look at my blog and find out more about the International Environment Council I and a few others starting.

By: Carl B

Carl B — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:40:46 +0000

The precautionary principle might be put to good use here. Has there been any study on effects to rooted vegetation and the benthic community? What about effects on water temperature in smaller bodies of water? Ian H makes a good point, but it seems to me like most cities have plenty of useless roof tops that we should fill up with solar panels before we start throwing them up on water.

By: Ian H.

Ian H. — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:53:45 +0000

it’s a good idea if used in places where fish, rowers, and paddlers aren’t prevalent to begin with: in city rivers, for example.

By: judy b.

judy b. — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:27:59 +0000

I think we have to realize that we are at a place and time where we don’t have a lot of options. Beauty and comfort are now luxuries lost to decades of fiscally cheap but environmentally expensive living. Thirty or 40 years ago we might have talked about balancing energy efficiency with eco beauty, but right now we have to do all we can to repair the planet – as much as that is even possible. And I think the floating lily pads are actually pretty.

By: carolita

carolita — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:58:29 +0000

I like it. As long as they don’t over do it, I think it’s fine. The waterways are artificially bare, so why not add the “lily pads” to provide a little cover?
I don’t mind wind turbines placed well, either. I know some think they’re ugly, but when you look at them you should be seeing a mechanism that is working with the environment rather than an eyesore. Knowing what it is makes it prettier for me, somehow.

When are they going to start using old clothes that nobody wants for fuel? That’s my question! And when are clothes going to be made that can be replaced in part when they start showing wear? Why not provide new sleeves? Modular clothing would be cool. It would bring back the old days when people used to repair things instead of throwing them away.