Reader Question: Trees vs. Solar Panels

That photo looks like the New Leaf Cafe up in the park near the Cloisters (in NYC)...

--
editor note: It's actually a small restaurant in Taiwan, AFAIK.

I'd say, if your energy is dirty (coal or oil), cut them down! It seems evil, but ultimately I think you're going to remove more carbon from the air through solar heating/electricity per year then your tree will. You can also offset the chopping of your tree by planting new trees elsewhere on your property. And, don't waste your tree. Have someone turn it into wood and mulch for you. Build something out of it and use the mulch to help other plants around your home grow.

Or, if you just can't bring yourself to chop it down (I know I couldn't), look into a windmill. You can erect a tower over your tree that will produce the clean energy you want, without cutting down what you love.

If the roof is tree-shaded but your yard isn't and you have enough available yard space, you could also consider a pole-mounted solar system rather than a roof-mounted system.

Cutting down a tree shouldn't be an option at all. I'm surprised you're even thinking about it. In India it's be a major offence and you'd be liable to a severe penalty from the city forest department.

Anyway, here's an idea. If you really HAVE to cut the tree and if it's legal in your country, consider planting a dozen trees elsewhere every month for an year. If you're lucky, ten of those trees will survive and grow to their natural life.

In Delhi, where I live, the Govt. provides free tree saplings for plantation to anyone who's interested. The city's forest cover has grown significantly over the past few years.

Cut the trees down and plant new ones elsewhere on your property. A growing tree sucks more carbon out of the air than a fully grown one. Make it a dense fiber tree like oak rather than a light fiber such as pine, which absorbs less carbon. If that tree is an evergreen, it will eliminate any possibility of you using the sun to meet any of your energy needs, whether it be passive solar space heating, solar thermal water heating or PV. Even if it isn't an evergreen, a big tree with lots of big branches would severely limit any energy benefits from the sun. I'm a tree-hugger because I want to save the eco-systems we rely on and cherish, not because I want to save individual trees.

By the way, you could always plant two meter bushes out front. Trees aren't the only plants that store carbon.

Firstly ... thank you Kristen for pointing out what should be an obvious solution for mounting the panels.

Depending on the climate, the tree(s) may well be providing a major cooling service ... thereby making them an energy reducing 'asset' for otherwise minimizing the use of air conditioning.

Also, the trees provide major social benefits for many surrounding neighbours/passers-by ... the awful sound of chainsaws/mulchers/etc. and the sight of stumps simply sends an ugly and contradictory message in this age of eco-enlightenment.

What kind of a climate do you live in? Is that tree providing shade that you need in the summer? Is it blocking cold wind in the winter? Is it absorbing water so that you don't get soil erosion as soon as it is gone?

Without looking closely at the interaction of your home site with your house I would advise you not to do anything so harsh as cutting the tree down.

I agree with the suggestion about placing the solar panels elsewhere, or looking into wind technology.

Besides, personally, I never like to see a perfectly good tree cut down.

You could have the tree(s) moved from one place to another, maybe even within the property. There are big trucks that come in, "scoop" up a large tree, including most of the major roots and transplant it to another hole dug out somewhere else.

Keep the tree(s). They'll be providing more summer cooling than any energy you could ever get from solar panels.

Keep the tree(s)!

I'll second or third this statement. And I recommend not looking at this from a carbon equation standpoint - too many factors you'll miss out on. The tree(s) likely provides shade in the summer and protection from the elements in winter. Aside from just cooling your house in the summer your tree(s) may help keep the temp on the street or sidewalk down as well. If your house isn't shaded you'll be spending a lot more energy on cooling it on those really hot days. As mentioned big trees are great habitat for a variety of wild critters. Large mature trees are also pretty good for property values and your trees may inspire neighbors to plant their own. Plus, think of the fuel you'll save by not engaging chain saws, chippers and stumpgrinders!

On a personal note, we recently had to cut down a diseased tree in our yard and, while we've replaced it - its replacement is much younger - and we really miss the canopy of the mature tree. It completely changes our yard.

I do like the alternative suggestions - wind, other solar options, buying green - there are probably many more creative ways you can find you reduce your dependence on the grid.

Let us know what you decide!

Keep that beauty of a tree. Lots of options available and lots to do; insulate the building, buy some great windows. Add skylights and let in more natural light. Get efficient appliances, better bulbs. Reduce the ammount power you use.

Making the building as efficient as possible is the first thing you do when considering solar.

Great comments here.

The first thing I would do is find a local solar installer and get them to do a site assessment with a tool called a Solar Pathfinder. It will tell them exactly how much shading you have on your roof and how that will affect power production. You might find that you can just get away with trimming the trees or you might find a better spot on your property for a pole-mounted system.

Why not see you can have your cake and eat it too: See if you have a neighbor who has a good roofline and no tree canopy. You could run cables from the solar installation to your house, and you could come to an agreement with her or him as to how much of the power you each would get.

Just one word of advice, re-read (or watch again) the Lorax!

I agree with a number of points made regarding alternatives to removing the trees. Check exactly how much shade the trees actually give the roof, especially in the half of the year the sun is lower on the horizon. It might be that you can get away with some pruning as a solution. It may also be possible that it is illegal to cut trees. Where I live in Spain, the government attempts to save the remaining tree cover of the country for environmental reasons so cutting trees is expressly prohibited; however, one can get a permit to cut trees for special legitimate reasons - and I have no doubt that installing PVs on the roof count as one. I don't know about there. You would have to find out. Smaller trees can be scooped out and transplanted, but it is a delicate procedure which the tree may not survive. I find it hard to imagine that very large trees can be scooped out. The root 'canopy' of a tree is basically as large as that of the leaf canopy. It would require cutting off a large portion of the roots to be able to get it out, severly debilitating the transplanted tree if the leaf canopy is not also similarly scaled back. Of course, buying 'green' electricity is the simpliest and cheapest choice for electricity, if electricity is the only thing you are considering trying to get from the sun.

A wind generator may or may not be a solution. I have a 1kW XL Bergey on a 15 meter electrical tower. The wind turbine is supposed to be at least 9 meters above any object within 100 meters. If your tree is really big, you may need a 20 or 30 meter tower for the turbine to work effectively and efficiently. If it is free standing (and it has to be for a small property) then you will be talking about major digging and foundation work for the base. And major work having a huge crane putting it in place, if a crane truck can get into your property. And, of course, you have to worry about neighbors who care more about looks than function complaining the the tower is an 'environmental eyesore' rather than an environmental solution. If you live in a suburb, you will also need a permit for the wind generator - which is often not given because of neighbors complaining about looks or noise or some other nonsense. Freestanding towers are also quite expensive. Guyed towers are less expensive, easier to set up, have a slightly less negative visual impact, don't require huge digging and foundation work or a large crane to install, but what it does require is a LOT of land space - a LOT. The guyed wires extend far out from the base. If you live in a suburb, I doubt you will have this space. So if you live in a suburb I doubt you will be able to actually set up a wind generator unless you are willing to spend a huge chunk of money and do some legal battles.

As for pole mounting, this might be a solution. Again, there are a number of variables which probably make it an unattractive option. I have four 120W PVs mounted on a passive solar tracker pole mount. The PVs need to be kept relatively low to the ground. I am assuming that you live in an area where the wind, and the strongest winds, blow from the north to the south, as is the case for the vast majority of people in the northern hemisphere. South facing PVs on a pole can act as a wind sail. Kept low and in front of wind barriers such as trees, bushes, buildings, etc. helps ensure that the strongest winds do not cause any damage. My PVs have never had any problems because they are low and have some small trees behind them. However, a nearby neighbor had a 'professional' installer put his PVs on a elevated fixed pole mount - way elevated because there were obstacles in front of the PVS. They were 3 to 4 meters up in the air and on a small hill. And these 'professionals' used poor quality, weak steel mounts. Needless to say, one day his PVs started flying away. Here is the catch: if you keep the PV panels low to the ground (to avoid wind problems) then you need a large swath of space in front of the PV panels with absolutely no tall objects (buildings, trees, tall bushes, gates, etc. Again, it may be possible that you have such conditions, but if you live in a suburb with a lot of trees, more likely than not you will not have enough land. Usually in suburbs you try to get the PVs up as high as possible to avoid shading, and the highest safe location is usually the top of the house roof. By the way, if you use a solar tracker mount you need a LOT of unobstructed land.

Depending on where exactly you live, it is possible that the trees do save you more energy in cooling than you would get from PV electricity. For this to be the case you would need to be a cooling-dominated climate such as Florida in the US or the Caribbean. However, if you live in the US, apart from some parts of the southeast and south, the rest of the country has either a balance of cooling or heating needs or predominately heating needs (ditto for Canada and the UK). In these areas, getting rid of the trees to take advantage of the sun will be of greater energy benefit if you also try to use the sun to meet some of your space and water heating needs - actually, especially if you do so since solar thermal air and water heaters are many times more efficient at converting the suns rays into useful energy.

As for the trees providing wind protection, it is not likely to be the case. If your winter winds come somewhere from the north as is the case for the vast majority of the northern hemisphere, your house will be shielding your southern trees from the cold wind, not vice versa. They will not provide any kind of wind protection.

Lastly, if you are concerned about the environment and contributing to being part of the solution to environmental problems, I would suggest focusing on practical, pragmatic decisions rather than looks. I have a neighbor who has a beautiful property, very green and lush and lively; he uses a ton of water in drought stricken Spain to achieve that, not to mention the required electricity, artificial fertilizers, pesticides, etc.

The hegelian dialectic strikes again!

Well, the obvious solution is to have one of these people that think a 'fully grown tree'(sic) ceases to autorespire hug the tree precisely while you cut it down.

Why do people still think that planting trees will magically take away carbon? Photosynthesis absorbs carbon dioxide during the day when there is light and then releases is again at night. The carbon that it absorbs will be released again as the tree dies or is destroyed. Some trees and forests will keep some carbon butfor the most parts forests and trees in their lifetime are carbon neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink

Would you believe that a good way to sequester carbon is actually to build lots of asphalt roads, concrete buildings and have a large collection of books? Because those all store carbon on a much more permanent basis than trees do.

There's plenty of very good reasons not to cut down trees, don't get me wrong. But reducing carbon and carbon dioxide is not a feasible one.

Somebody did remembered this is TREEhugger.com, right? I am at a wrong place, if ppl actually advising cutting trees....

Everyone here seems to think that the next piece of technology is going to save this planet, the solar panel, the $100 labtop,...Excusses for ppl to keep buying new toys.

Good grace, just get back to the basic, and stop cutting down trees,will ya.

Don't cut the trees down. Place the solar panels in a location where it accesses sun without harming the trees. If this is not possible, maby you should consider wind power as an alternative. Please don't cut down the trees that took 100+ years to grow just to make some cheap power.

I'm all for cutting down the tree completely and replacing it with several saplings. As a previous poster mentioned replace with a dense wood. Walnut is good and will produce food too.

I assume you are connected to the grid. So Electricity consumption and production do not have to be at the same place. So why not look try to realise a solar energy projekt somewhere else?

In Germany there is a nice law that allows citizen groups to build photovoltaic systems on the roofs of public buildings. The citizens make the investment and get the earnings.

I don't know if you have school going children, but this could be a very interesting, parent/children/school/community projekt.

It does not matter where your PV panels are!

There are good arguments either way, and since it's not clear what you should do, I'd propose looking at the problem thus:

-The *net* benefits of cutting down the trees and installing solar will likely be small, and possibly nill or negative.

- The COST of cutting down the trees, then buying and installing solar panels will run into the thousands.

So why not keep the trees, and invest the money you save into a project where you KNOW it will have the greatest effect? As this website amply demonstrates, there are plenty of worthy projects out there that don't involve such moral quandries. Stick your money into one of those, where it'll do the most good.

I'd like to also point out that, in an urban area, trees have many effects beyond (directly) saving on electricity consumption. There is also stormwater and urban heat island effects to be considered. These are most important in denser areas, but are still significant in suburban areas.

Planting sapplings will take years to have an effect as large as mature trees on all of the following counts: shading, water retention (a bare lawn will require substantially more watering) , and carbon sequestration (the rate of growth of sapplings will be greater, but not the absolute quantity of new growth).

When you include all these effects with the important ones of aesthetics and habitat, the effects of a mature tree are significant, and not easily replaceable. It would be a shame to lose such an asset.

Ummm,

Just mount the solar panels on a pole off to the side of your house.

Sorry, I have to agree with the "Keep the Tree" crowd. By keeping your roof shaded, you will use your air conditioner less, and the coolants from AC's can be just as bad as using carbon energy. If you do decide to cut the trees down, it would be a wise idea to to also install solar attic fans (current price about $300 per model).

I have the same problem with my house- and I really love the old trees around me.

One thing I am working on is trying to get the nearby high school to put solar panels on its roof. If Dominion Power ever allows distributed energy, I may be able to get power from the high school.

Keep the tree screw solar. It's ineffcient and extremely expensive to produce or dispose of. Not to mention creates tons of toxins in manufacturing. The tree is more athesitic than solar panels and probably more helpful in keeping yout house shaded. Go get a geothermal heating and cooling instead.

I assume it is a deciduous tree. If so, definitely leave it alone. During the summer, as was mentioned earlier, the tree probably saves you energy by reducing your cooling needs. During the winter, the leaves are gone and you can generate electricity.

Of course, generating electricity only in the late fall through late spring will significantly increase the payback period for the panels, perhaps making them uneconomical.

A few points to consider:

1) The tree is likely to help cool your house, thereby reducing your A/C needs and electrical consumption, *far more* than the typical solar installation will help.

2) You can buy green power from other locations instead. Why do you need the solar panels on *your* roof? They can be someplace else, and you can simply buy the power from solar and wind that's in another site.

3) As someone mentioned earlier, old, mature trees are basically carbon neutral -- UNTIL YOU CUT THEM DOWN. Then that carbon rots, decomposes, etc., and is released back into the atmosphere. Keeping the trees alive prevents that carbon from going into the atmosphere.

4) Trees do a hell of a lot more, too. They're habitat, they help control excess runoff and soil erosion, and so on, and so on.

So, to me, it's a no-brainer. Keep the trees. Buy green power generated someplace else. And use your *huge* cost savings (solar systems are very, very expensive) to work on energy efficiency improvements in your home.

That's what we did, and we had a very similar situation.

Good luck!

Don't cut down the trees! The shade from the tree is probably saving you a substantial amount of energy.

Another commenter suggested that if your electricity supply is from a dirty source, cut them down. That's short sighted. If you don't have a renewable energy program with your power company, you probably will soon. Instead of cutting down your trees, write your representatives in government demanding that power suppliers offer a renewable energy program. I buy 100% wind power from Xcel in Minnesota.

People undervalue mature trees at their own peril. They are worth a lot of money (if that's how you want to look at things). You'd be making a big mistake by cutting them down.

All the comments here are very apropos. I'd like to chime in about several things.

1) Pruning could be a perfect solution, especially if you have some idea of how shadows will fall during different seasons. The pro version of SketchUp software lets you model this. I'm not sure if the free Google version does. Fun program!

2) I am very skeptical about generating electricity with solar panels under deciduous trees, as I believe one commenter suggested.

Even barren trees provide a surprising amount of shade in the winter when the angle of the sun is low. I worked on one study (Journal of Ecology 82: 843-854, figure 4, line for "PAR") where only about 30% of light from the sky made it to the forest floor in a barren winter forest at midday. This number will be even lower at other times of day when the sun is lower and consequently there is more barren canopy for the light to pass through.

If you put solar panels under a barren canopy, it'd be very inferior to a pole-mounted system. It's probably better to simply let the barren canopy pass some light to heat the house during winter.

Hope that adds something.

Keep the tree if you like it- and if it provides other services, including a nice view.
If you are stuck on Solar-
I would consider looking into 3rd generation solar technology (dyesol) that does not require direct sunlight- and may be cheaper depending on where you live.

If you want to generate electricity, look at whats around- geothermal, wind, bio, etc.. and think about how you can sustainably use these sources- I know a guy who buit his own hydro plant on his stream! It's a little DIY- but in the end I think it is usually worth the investment in time.

We have a similar problem at our house, though we are dead set against cutting down trees. In our case, simply cutting back some of the branches would allow us to keep the tree and get plenty of sun to our roof, for when we eventually get solar panels. It's hard to give any advice without seeing a picture of the house and the tree, so maybe this isn't an option for you.

If you have a wood-burning fireplace, you may be able to heat your home in the winter for a long time with the wood you get from cutting down the tree, if it's big enough. That would save lots of fossil fuels or electricity. Plus you get your solar panels.

--
editor note: Something to consider: We don't generally recommend burning wood except with high-efficiency wood stoves. Burning wood can create big air quality problems inside and outside houses, with lots and lots of particulate matter in the air.

Plant young trees elsewhere on your property, in 2 years the trees will be well established and you can cut down those big trees.
And Luckily, in 2 years Nanosolar will revolutionize solar panel technology and cost for panels will dramatically decrease.
Play your cards right, treehugger.

If you cut your tree down, than your air conditioner will have to work harder, and your ugly solar panels won't make a difference.

Why compromise? If you can afford it, do both! Keep the tree to produce shade in the summer. In the winter, when leaves are down, the panels will be exposed to the sun to produce electricity. You just get less bang for your PV buck, that's all. Leaves are only on trees two seasons out of the year.

its an outrage of what fast food industries are dowing to the amazon we should do some thing

Maybe you could have both! I would suggest investigating whether its possible to stick solar panels on posts tied around tree branches.
If that can be done I'd stick them on to the tree with the posts firmly fastened to main branches for support. Putting an extension lead on the panels to route the electricity to your house and voila solar energy is yours!
Plus local wildlife will have plenty of new nesting opportunities where the posts and branches meet.

today i stood up for the trees there cutting down at ym school and i got an indoor suspension for doing somthing that i beleive in! Its stupid we had a pitition and everything they chose to ignore it!