Damn trees stealing California mans solar power!

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, not quite exactly, but the density of utter stupidity of this situation seems nearly able to cause a galactic implosion.

Solar panel feud leaves tree owners out on a limb
Neighbors forced to cut redwoods that block light

By Terence Chea, Associated Press | February 21, 2008

SUNNYVALE, Calif. - In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for this eco-friendly state, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked the sunlight to his backyard solar panels.

But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas's energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001.

Specialists say such clashes could become more common as California promotes renewable energy and solar energy systems become more popular.

"Five or 10 years ago, you wouldn't have seen this case because there weren't that many systems around," said Frank Schiavo, a retired environmental studies professor at San Jose State University. "I can almost guarantee there are going to be more conflicts."

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

The couple said they won't appeal the ruling because they can't afford the legal expenses, but they plan to lobby state lawmakers to change or scrap the law.

The Solar Shade Control Act means that homeowners can "suddenly become a criminal the day a tree grows big enough to shade a solar panel," Treanor said.

The case marks the first time a homeowner has been convicted of violating the law, which was enacted three decades ago, when few homeowners had solar energy systems.

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sunlight is the strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Residents can be fined up to $1,000 a day for violations, though the judge did not impose any fines against the Treanors.

Vargas says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened.

"I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.

Treanor, a retired engineer, said he and his wife are not against solar power, "but we think there's a rational way to implement it."

Solar power is growing rapidly in California, which is by far the nation's biggest generator of such energy.

In 2007, more than 30,000 California homes and businesses had rooftop solar panels, with the capacity to generate 400 megawatts of electricity.

That's as much as eight power plants, according to the nonprofit Environment California.

The boom is being fueled by the California Solar Initiative, which offers homeowners and businesses more than $3 billion in rebates over the next decade to install solar-electric systems.

Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment.

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air, and provide a habitat for wildlife.

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take 2 or 3 acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

Bernadette Del Chiaro, a clean energy advocate for Environment California, says the solar shade law might need to be revised to prevent similar disputes.

"We want to make sure we are protecting individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power, which is an important resource for the state," she said. But lawmakers might want to "take a look at the policy and make sure it's written in a way that's fair to everybody."
Das Link

[Mr Bean]

Two things
1. Heard about this on Marketplace a few weeks ago(See the date of feb 21st) an according to the reporter the two neighbors hate each other for random bullshit reasons, however the guy has the legal aurgment, the law says nothing can steal your sunshine, so unlike in Springfield it's not legal to build a giant sunblocking device to force the town residents to use more power.

2. The guys a fucking moron, he's neighbor plants REDWOODS in their yard and he invests in solar power? What the fuck do you think was going to happen? Tree's not grow where you come from? Never seen a seven plus story tall redwood before?

On the one hand their is a point to the law in question. If I shell out ten thousand dollars for solar panels on my house to reduce my power bills, and my neighbor builds or plants or creates something to block the sunlight from hitting the panels, I'd be @#$@4 angry. On the other hand the guy went into this knowing the tree's were planted and were going to grow, being motherfucking redwoods and all.

In conclusion, I say get a taller house, and leave the tree's alone.

[Singular Intellect]

I can certainly appreciate how the owners of the trees feel they have an arguement, since they were there first, the trees are on their property, entitlement to making their property look nice, etc.

However, the world's problem of energy needs and peak oil is not a minor one, and we as a society need to seriously start encouraging people to do exactly what this guy is doing with his solar panels.

If it's a choice between aesthetics and necessary energy needs, the trees unfortunately lose every time.

[Aaron]

I can certainly appreciate how the owners of the trees feel they have an arguement, since they were there first, the trees are on their property, entitlement to making their property look nice, etc.

However, the world's problem of energy needs and peak oil is not a minor one, and we as a society need to seriously start encouraging people to do exactly what this guy is doing with his solar panels.

If it's a choice between aesthetics and necessary energy needs, the trees unfortunately lose every time.

Or the guy could have a wind turbine put up to offset the times when the trees block the sun.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I can certainly appreciate how the owners of the trees feel they have an arguement, since they were there first, the trees are on their property, entitlement to making their property look nice, etc.

However, the world's problem of energy needs and peak oil is not a minor one, and we as a society need to seriously start encouraging people to do exactly what this guy is doing with his solar panels.

If it's a choice between aesthetics and necessary energy needs, the trees unfortunately lose every time.

Ya'know, he could have raised the panels above the trees to get better sun. After all, there's plenty of shadows cast by other houses around. What if someone builds a rather tall house next to him? What next? Ask for the house to be knocked down?

[Glocksman]

I can certainly appreciate how the owners of the trees feel they have an arguement, since they were there first, the trees are on their property, entitlement to making their property look nice, etc.

However, the world's problem of energy needs and peak oil is not a minor one, and we as a society need to seriously start encouraging people to do exactly what this guy is doing with his solar panels.

If it's a choice between aesthetics and necessary energy needs, the trees unfortunately lose every time.

Or the guy could have a wind turbine put up to offset the times when the trees block the sun.

That's assuming he could afford the additional cost in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose winter household electricity/gas bills are in the US$350/month range on a $12/hr income, I say 'Fuck the neighbor'.

Of course if he could afford to switch to alternative sources, then my position may change.

[Sea Skimmer]

I can certainly appreciate how the owners of the trees feel they have an arguement, since they were there first, the trees are on their property, entitlement to making their property look nice, etc.

And the fact that the trees owner will have to pay thousands of dollars to have the things cut down, getting a pair of big tree removed is not cheap. That’s the most damnning part of it all.

However, the world's problem of energy needs and peak oil is not a minor one, and we as a society need to seriously start encouraging people to do exactly what this guy is doing with his solar panels.

Global warming isn't a minor issue either, and big trees soak up shitloads of CO2. Note that this guys solar panels are also NOT on the highest point of this guys house, he deliberately chose to locate them on a piece of roof only one story off the ground!

[Aaron]

That's assuming he could afford the additional cost in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose winter household electricity/gas bills are in the US$350/month range on a $12/hr income, I say 'Fuck the neighbor'.

Of course if he could afford to switch to alternative sources, then my position may change.

He spent 70K on the solar panels, and he has a plug in electric car. Seems he's not hurting for money, though he could be up to his neck in debt. Besides the turbine provides redundancy.

[Tsyroc]

In Arizona people are encouraged to plant tress and shrubs to help shade their houses because it helps a great deal in reducing cooling costs.

With that in mind it makes me think that cutting down the trees so he can get better sun for his solar panels might turn out to be counter productive.

[Rogue 9]

This is fucking bullshit. If the guy with the solar panels was even remotely intelligent he'd have done something besides install solar panels, completely independent of the trees' existence, due to how toxic the damned things are.

Perhaps they should just take a chainsaw to the redwoods and drop them in the other guy's yard. After all, if he wants rid of them, he can clean up the mess his own damned self.

[Silver Jedi]

But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas's energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001...

Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Couldn't the just trim the last few years worth of growth, rather than cutting the whole tree down?

[Sea Skimmer]

Couldn't the just trim the last few years worth of growth, rather than cutting the whole tree down?

The trees have gotten so tall they'd be ugly as hell if you cut them back enough.

[Coalition]

Another option if the solar panels cannot be used:

He has invested $70,000 in the solar panels. Take that figure, subtract from it the power he has gotten for free, and a little back to make some sort of profit (to represent his labor in installing the panels), and sell the panels. This way he is not hurting the environment by having another set of solar panels made, and not filling up a landfill, or having them taken apart for the raw materials.

From there, do as recommended above with installing the wind turbine, and take advantage of the free shade the Redwoods provide.

[Col. Crackpot]

Another option if the solar panels cannot be used:

He has invested $70,000 in the solar panels. Take that figure, subtract from it the power he has gotten for free, and a little back to make some sort of profit (to represent his labor in installing the panels), and sell the panels. This way he is not hurting the environment by having another set of solar panels made, and not filling up a landfill, or having them taken apart for the raw materials.

From there, do as recommended above with installing the wind turbine, and take advantage of the free shade the Redwoods provide.

So you want to install wind turbines that will be surrounded by redwood trees? Have you ever seen a wind turbine? Do you even understand how a wind turbine works? Obviously not.

[His Divine Shadow]

Thanks to this thread I now have 30 Sequioadendron Giganteum seeds at home that I will germinate. The plan is to grow them in pots (outdoors for summer, indoors cold storage for winter) for the first few years of their lives before planting them in my parents spacious rural place.

[tim31]

That's assuming he could afford the additional cost in the first place.
Speaking as someone whose winter household electricity/gas bills are in the US$350/month range on a $12/hr income, I say 'Fuck the neighbor'.

Of course if he could afford to switch to alternative sources, then my position may change.

He spent 70K on the solar panels, and he has a plug in electric car. Seems he's not hurting for money, though he could be up to his neck in debt. Besides the turbine provides redundancy.

Not to mention that the cost of a wind turbine is pifling compared to photovoltaics. 70K to charge his electric car and be less dependent on the grid? Take him years before that offsets the annual costs of fuel/electricity.

[wjs7744]

Apologies in advance if this counts as spam, but I can't help but read this as basically: "We care a lot about the environment. In fact, we care so much that we are going to make people cut down their trees!". I would also like to see a source for the guy's claim that a solitary solar panel is enough to make up for "several acres of trees", especially considering that these are redwoods we are talking about. Doesn't sound right to me.