Solar Powered Homes

[Zekeer]

It's really easy
Step 1...put your mouth on a gas powered cars tailpipe for 1 minute
Step 2....do the same with an electric vehicle.
Step 3...come to your own conclusion

It's really easy
Step 1...put your mouth on a gas powered cars tailpipe for 1 minute
Step 2....do the same with an electric vehicle.
Step 3...come to your own conclusion

HUH LOL LOL Actually putting your mouth on a tailpipe would burn it so badly you'd have to be pried off. LOL That's not a very fair and honest example . Since the E-bike wouldn't exist without C02 and Coal . First off C02 is fantastic for the environment. Everything GREEN Loves it . And in turn for us feeding them they supply us with oxygen. Now on a serious note . Think logically if C02 was dangerous to mammals or to the planet . We'd be suffocating . Besides the batteries we have in our bikes required both coal and gas to be made . You're frame required gas ,to be molded and welded . Solar panels require the same things . When thrown away after 20 years they damage the dirt and topsoil. Not to mention the people that are forced to make solar panels die of cancer inside of 15 years . And yes they are forced by China to work in these places . Don't get me wrong I'm all for some green renewables . But who are we trying to kid .
What gives us the technology we all have at the touch of our fingers is Gas/Oil and Coal . That's what brought us farther in the last 100 years then we had advanced in the previous 5000 years or more .
You'll see when thousands of the elderly die in Europe for lack of heat this winter . That's not speculation either

Green renewable energy as a source of advancing is like dying your hair when you're 60 . Or putting lipstick on your pig and telling the neighbors and friends she's your girlfriend .

 

[Mr. Coffee]

My point was it's all deception to push fear we need to go Green to saved the planet .. We can't support the planet with Green . Impossible

Citation please. I've heard that assertion multiple times and haven't ever seen the hard numbers that would back it up.

By "Green" I am assuming you refer to PV solar and wind power.

I can't overemphasize to people that there are different definitions of "solved": maybe you can make the physics work, then perhaps you can build a practical implementation, and then there is a hope you can build a version that is economically feasible. None of those steps are necessarily easy and just because you've solved the first one or two doesn't mean you can save the world with it.

 

[Art Deco]

Citation please. I've heard that assertion multiple times and haven't ever seen the hard numbers that would back it up.

By "Green" I am assuming you refer to PV solar and wind power.

I can't overemphasize to people that there are different definitions of "solved": s ?maybe you can make the physics work, then perhaps you can build a practical implementation, and then there is a hope you can build a version that is economically feasible. None of those steps are necessarily easy and just because you've solved the first one or two doesn't mean you can save the world with it.

It's interesting to see how many valuable points you bring up in what seems to me a futile effort. Thank you, though. And after the technology exists, then money (who pays?)and a host of other bitter social issues have to be resolved before anything is implemented. My focus is what people, not corporations or gogovernments, are doing right now ..

 

[scrambler]

Aside from transitioning to renewable, the elephant in the room is that world economies will have to abandon the growth principle on which they are based.
We simply cannot keep on growing the economy, it is just not sustainable. A new model is required.

There is a great comic book made in France by eminent researchers to make a lot of hardcore data be more palatable.
It has now been translated to English, it is full of good information

World Without End

An insightful and amusing look at the energy and climate challenges facing our world today. Is this the end of the world? Perhaps not yet… With humor and intelligence, “World Without End” is the fruit of a years-long collaboration between […]

www.europecomics.com

 

[Gionnirocket]

HUH LOL LOL Actually putting your mouth on a tailpipe would burn it so badly you'd have to be pried off. LOL That's not a very fair and honest example . Since the E-bike wouldn't exist without C02 and Coal . First off C02 is fantastic for the environment. Everything GREEN Loves it . And in turn for us feeding them they supply us with oxygen. Now on a serious note . Think logically if C02 was dangerous to mammals or to the planet . We'd be suffocating . Besides the batteries we have in our bikes required both coal and gas to be made . You're frame required gas ,to be molded and welded . Solar panels require the same things . When thrown away after 20 years they damage the dirt and topsoil. Not to mention the people that are forced to make solar panels die of cancer inside of 15 years . And yes they are forced by China to work in these places . Don't get me wrong I'm all for some green renewables . But who are we trying to kid .
What gives us the technology we all have at the touch of our fingers is Gas/Oil and Coal . That's what brought us farther in the last 100 years then we had advanced in the previous 5000 years or more .
You'll see when thousands of the elderly die in Europe for lack of heat this winter . That's not speculation either

Green renewable energy as a source of advancing is like dying your hair when you're 60 . Or putting lipstick on your pig and telling the neighbors and friends she's your girlfriend .

Wow... That hurt to process.

 

[Zekeer]

Wow... That hurt to process.

True things usually are hurtful . I can see the climate storms and flooding is getting way more intense . But then you read about all this cloud seeding and how it's used as a weapon . one has to wonder is that what happened in Pakistan ? 1/3 of the country is underwater . Besides the reason I know all of this Climate Change is nonsense being used to control us ? Take a look at Davos and the WEF . They tell us the Oceans are rising at alarming rates . When they are buying up Beach front Property. I agree that the climate is getting much more violent . However, It's not caused by C02 . If it was wouldn't the thing that would stop C02 emissions the fastest be to eliminate Carbon footprints ?? I mean the kind that have arms and legs :

 

[Zekeer]

Citation please. I've heard that assertion multiple times and haven't ever seen the hard numbers that would back it up.

By "Green" I am assuming you refer to PV solar and wind power.

I can't overemphasize to people that there are different definitions of "solved": maybe you can make the physics work, then perhaps you can build a practical implementation, and then there is a hope you can build a version that is economically feasible. None of those steps are necessarily easy and just because you've solved the first one or two doesn't mean you can save the world with it.

You speak of all this hope . That's all fine and dandy . But you don't build a bigger home to move into and tear down your old house before you've even laid down a foundation to build the new one do you ? That's what they are doing . Getting rid of gas when there's nothing to replace it . Spending mountains of money and producing nothing for it ?? That is why things are inflated so much so fast . Closing down coal mines when you need coal for Steel and batteries as well as heat . You're asking for hard numbers to back what up? Common sense does that .
If we shut up our gas supply . What we going to use until your hopes happen ? For that matter where is the money going to come from ? The Dollar has stayed #1 because it's the reserve money to pay for gas and oil. If they eliminate the dollar will plummet over night . It already is going down .

The dollar has dropped 13% and the Euro has increased 3% since 2020 . THe Euro even worse because of America free wheeling spending .

All one has to do is look how many 100 windmills it takes to power a small area . How could we power big cities that way ? Was it 2 years ago they had that hard Freeze in Texas and people died because there was an issue with fuel lines and Green energy windmills all froze up and couldn't pick up the slack ??

Of course that's not the way mainstream Media spun it .
There's been report after report on how Chinese People are forced to work in Solar mills . That it is a job you die at after 10 years 15 at most . That's not conspiracy theory . It's just not spoken of so people forget or don't even know it .
The world's a Mess . But if you watch the News in America . You'd think the biggest problem is Donald Trump and Jan 6 th .

Bottom line with Gas/oil in the meantime . The world can't maintain the level it currently is

 

[Gionnirocket]

Wow once again.
Out of respect for Mr. Deco I'm going to refrain from being my usual congenial self and take an ignore.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

All one has to do is look how many 100 windmills it takes to power a small area . How could we power big cities that way ? Was it 2 years ago they had that hard Freeze in Texas and people died because there was an issue with fuel lines and Green energy windmills all froze up and couldn't pick up the slack ??

Funny you should mention windmills.

My first observation is that you can do other things with the land you have wind farms on. Note the emphasis on wind farms.

Pretty standard engineering calculations at this point shows that a typical wind farm generates 1Mw per 0.75 acres.

Now there are 915 million acres of farmland in the United States (USDA).

Now through the magic of multiplication, if through some reason we decided that all farms should also be wind farms, we'd have a generating capacity from just wind turbines on farms of 686 million megawatts.

I note that the current generating capacity of the entire United States is about 1.1 million megawatts.

Of course, you do need to take into account the capacity and utilization factors. Even making a very conservative assumption that any given wind turbine would only be generating 15 percent of its capacity (real-world numbers are between 25 and 50 percent) we still are generating over 102 million megawatts -- approximately ninety times the current US generating capacity. Note that doesn't include existing hydropower and nuclear plants, and I reasonably assume we'd keep most of them for their useful lives.

I haven't even mentioned that we could also put wind turbine on the land that we use to grow cows. There are approximately 770 million acres of rangeland in the United States distinct from the farmland mentioned previously.

This of course assumes that we'd restructure our grid to distribute that energy efficiently. Given that our power grid is over a century old it is time for a remodel anyway and we might as well get it right.

So using 4th-grade math I've shown that we could get there with wind power and some slight remodeling of farmland. This is more rigorous work than I've ever seen from any of the naysayers who just say how it is impossible. The physics and the engineering work, and given the recent cost figures showing that on-shore wind is by far the cheapest source of electricity today I think it a safe bet that the economics work too. Notice that I left out offshore wind power too.

Now, back to the topic.

I'll do a similar calculation for solar power. Let us assume that we decide to put sunshades over all of the parking spaces in the United States. There are estimated to be between 800 million and 2 billion parking spaces in the United States. Pretty standard size for parking spaces is ten by twenty feet, so you can pack 225 parking spaces in an acre (I don't count the lanes you need to drive the parking space, and also ignore that a lot of parking spaces are compact and smaller -- for a Fermi number those two probably cancel out).
I'm also going to ignore multi-floor parking garages. My argument would be that if I use the lower number and make some reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of multi-floor parking garages the numbers again about work out.

That works out to about 3.6 million acres used for parking in the United States if you use the lower number.

Now generation per acre for PV is all over the place, with estimates from 0.1Mw/acre to 10Mw/acre -- I'd guess that is because they are including capacity factors in their figure, and capacity factors will vary by location far more for PV than for wind. Just to make this easy I am going to split the baby and use 1Mw/acre.

So you lead the conclusion that PV panels covering all parking in the United States would generate THREE TIMES (THREE TIMES!) the amount of electricity we currently generate.

My conclusion is that not only can we go to 100 percent renewables and generate just as much electricity, we'd have an insane amount of growth capacity to power all of those new electric cars we'd need too. And probably have a few centuries' of headroom for generating more electricity if we decide we need it. All at far lower costs than our current electricity generation systems.

Again, with 4th-grade math this is a no-brainer.

 

[Art Deco]

Funny you should mention windmills.

My first observation is that you can do other things with the land you have wind farms on. Note the emphasis on wind farms.

Pretty standard engineering calculations at this point shows that a typical wind farm generates 1Mw per 0.75 acres.

Now there are 915 million acres of farmland in the United States (USDA).

Now through the magic of multiplication, if through some reason we decided that all farms should also be wind farms, we'd have a generating capacity from just wind turbines on farms of 686 million megawatts.

I note that the current generating capacity of the entire United States is about 1.1 million megawatts.

Of course, you do need to take into account the capacity and utilization factors. Even making a very conservative assumption that any given wind turbine would only be generating 15 percent of its capacity (real-world numbers are between 25 and 50 percent) we still are generating over 102 million megawatts -- approximately ninety times the current US generating capacity. Note that doesn't include existing hydropower and nuclear plants, and I reasonably assume we'd keep most of them for their useful lives.

I haven't even mentioned that we could also put wind turbine on the land that we use to grow cows. There are approximately 770 million acres of rangeland in the United States distinct from the farmland mentioned previously.

This of course assumes that we'd restructure our grid to distribute that energy efficiently. Given that our power grid is over a century old it is time for a remodel anyway and we might as well get it right.

So using 4th-grade math I've shown that we could get there with wind power and some slight remodeling of farmland. This is more rigorous work than I've ever seen from any of the naysayers who just say how it is impossible. The physics and the engineering work, and given the recent cost figures showing that on-shore wind is by far the cheapest source of electricity today I think it a safe bet that the economics work too. Notice that I left out offshore wind power too.

Now, back to the topic.

I'll do a similar calculation for solar power. Let us assume that we decide to put sunshades over all of the parking spaces in the United States. There are estimated to be between 800 million and 2 billion parking spaces in the United States. Pretty standard size for parking spaces is ten by twenty feet, so you can pack 225 parking spaces in an acre (I don't count the lanes you need to drive the parking space, and also ignore that a lot of parking spaces are compact and smaller -- for a Fermi number those two probably cancel out).
I'm also going to ignore multi-floor parking garages. My argument would be that if I use the lower number and make some reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of multi-floor parking garages the numbers again about work out.

That works out to about 3.6 million acres used for parking in the United States if you use the lower number.

Now generation per acre for PV is all over the place, with estimates from 0.1Mw/acre to 10Mw/acre -- I'd guess that is because they are including capacity factors in their figure, and capacity factors will vary by location far more for PV than for wind. Just to make this easy I am going to split the baby and use 1Mw/acre.

So you lead the conclusion that PV panels covering all parking in the United States would generate THREE TIMES (THREE TIMES!) the amount of electricity we currently generate.

My conclusion is that not only can we go to 100 percent renewables and generate just as much electricity, we'd have an insane amount of growth capacity to power all of those new electric cars we'd need too. And probably have a few centuries' of headroom for generating more electricity if we decide we need it. All at far lower costs than our current electricity generation systems.

Again, with 4th-grade math this is a no-brainer.

You could you forward this to many people that could easily understand it, if only their paycheck didn't depend on their not understanding it as Upton Sinclair put in a century ago ... Manchin comes to mind today, but there are many.

 

[Roamers]

Funny you should mention windmills.

My first observation is that you can do other things with the land you have wind farms on. Note the emphasis on wind farms.

Pretty standard engineering calculations at this point shows that a typical wind farm generates 1Mw per 0.75 acres.

Now there are 915 million acres of farmland in the United States (USDA).

Now through the magic of multiplication, if through some reason we decided that all farms should also be wind farms, we'd have a generating capacity from just wind turbines on farms of 686 million megawatts.

I note that the current generating capacity of the entire United States is about 1.1 million megawatts.

Of course, you do need to take into account the capacity and utilization factors. Even making a very conservative assumption that any given wind turbine would only be generating 15 percent of its capacity (real-world numbers are between 25 and 50 percent) we still are generating over 102 million megawatts -- approximately ninety times the current US generating capacity. Note that doesn't include existing hydropower and nuclear plants, and I reasonably assume we'd keep most of them for their useful lives.

I haven't even mentioned that we could also put wind turbine on the land that we use to grow cows. There are approximately 770 million acres of rangeland in the United States distinct from the farmland mentioned previously.

This of course assumes that we'd restructure our grid to distribute that energy efficiently. Given that our power grid is over a century old it is time for a remodel anyway and we might as well get it right.

So using 4th-grade math I've shown that we could get there with wind power and some slight remodeling of farmland. This is more rigorous work than I've ever seen from any of the naysayers who just say how it is impossible. The physics and the engineering work, and given the recent cost figures showing that on-shore wind is by far the cheapest source of electricity today I think it a safe bet that the economics work too. Notice that I left out offshore wind power too.

Now, back to the topic.

I'll do a similar calculation for solar power. Let us assume that we decide to put sunshades over all of the parking spaces in the United States. There are estimated to be between 800 million and 2 billion parking spaces in the United States. Pretty standard size for parking spaces is ten by twenty feet, so you can pack 225 parking spaces in an acre (I don't count the lanes you need to drive the parking space, and also ignore that a lot of parking spaces are compact and smaller -- for a Fermi number those two probably cancel out).
I'm also going to ignore multi-floor parking garages. My argument would be that if I use the lower number and make some reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of multi-floor parking garages the numbers again about work out.

That works out to about 3.6 million acres used for parking in the United States if you use the lower number.

Now generation per acre for PV is all over the place, with estimates from 0.1Mw/acre to 10Mw/acre -- I'd guess that is because they are including capacity factors in their figure, and capacity factors will vary by location far more for PV than for wind. Just to make this easy I am going to split the baby and use 1Mw/acre.

So you lead the conclusion that PV panels covering all parking in the United States would generate THREE TIMES (THREE TIMES!) the amount of electricity we currently generate.

My conclusion is that not only can we go to 100 percent renewables and generate just as much electricity, we'd have an insane amount of growth capacity to power all of those new electric cars we'd need too. And probably have a few centuries' of headroom for generating more electricity if we decide we need it. All at far lower costs than our current electricity generation systems.

Again, with 4th-grade math this is a no-brainer.

That's great for everyone except the handful of people that like to temperature control their abodes at night when the sun isn't out and wind velocity typically reduces.

There needs to be more attention given to methods for storing energy harvested during the day for use between 4 pm and 9 am.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

That's great for everyone except the handful of people that like to temperature control their abodes at night when the sun isn't out and wind velocity typically reduces.

There needs to be more attention given to methods for storing energy harvested during the day for use between 4 pm and 9 am.

We already baked that in.

I assumed that our wind turbines generated electricity 15 percent of the time. We have real-world figures from real wind turbines used today that the capacity factor of wind turbines is 26 to 52 percent. The other piece to this is we need a bigger more fully-connected grid to make this work well. Even if it isn't windy in California it probably is still windy in Oregon and Idaho.

Even if we didn't bake that in, I'd argue any day of the week that the electricity storage problem is an easier problem to solve than how to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere at large scales. Much less solving the problem of efficiently generating electricity from controlled fusion.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

There is actually a "happy error" in my wind turbine calculations. The practical results of that error are that the theoretical capacity of land to hold wind turbines is about 1.75 times as high as I demonstrated.

 

[Art Deco]

That's great for everyone except the handful of people that like to temperature control their abodes at night when the sun isn't out and wind velocity typically reduces.

There needs to be more attention given to methods for storing energy harvested during the day for use between 4 pm and 9 am.

We know of a few ways to store energy like hydro or a solar pump filling a water tower that drives a turbine all night. Round and round we can go on losing energy ... unless there is a drought.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

We know of a few ways to store energy like hydro or a solar pump filling a water tower that drives a turbine all night. Round and round we can go on losing energy ... unless there is a drought.

Pumped hydro is cost-efficient and known to work and we know how to build it. The downside is that you really only want to do it on tall dams and there aren't that many of them.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, and the newest GE Wind Turbines are claiming a capacity factor of 60 to 65 percent -- coal-fired and nuclear plants are from 60 to 80 percent. On the average bigger and taller turbines will have a higher power production per acre. And at some point the towers will get tall enough to stack two or more turbines on them.

 

[Art Deco]

Oh, and the newest GE Wind Turbines are claiming a capacity factor of 60 to 65 percent -- coal-fired and nuclear plants are from 60 to 80 percent. On the average bigger and taller turbines will have a higher power production per acre. And at some point the towers will get tall enough to stack two or more turbines on them.

So there we go ... great example ... so even in the with driest desert you could pump compressed air to run off shore wind generators to produce electricity at night . No batteries or even water storage required. Just testing funding engineering marketing social acceptance government permitting materials shipping installing and lots more funding. Rinse and repeat.

We will need all the wind hydro solar and batteries we can get even if we limit ourselves to a few hours of peak production every day. And stogy old batteries are the new hot new technology for the decade or even for the new century.

 

[Art Deco]

That didn't come from "The Jungle" did it?

No. An essay I believe, but it was a long time ago that I read it.

 

[Zekeer]

Funny you should mention windmills.

My first observation is that you can do other things with the land you have wind farms on. Note the emphasis on wind farms.

Pretty standard engineering calculations at this point shows that a typical wind farm generates 1Mw per 0.75 acres.

Now there are 915 million acres of farmland in the United States (USDA).

Now through the magic of multiplication, if through some reason we decided that all farms should also be wind farms, we'd have a generating capacity from just wind turbines on farms of 686 million megawatts.

I note that the current generating capacity of the entire United States is about 1.1 million megawatts.

Of course, you do need to take into account the capacity and utilization factors. Even making a very conservative assumption that any given wind turbine would only be generating 15 percent of its capacity (real-world numbers are between 25 and 50 percent) we still are generating over 102 million megawatts -- approximately ninety times the current US generating capacity. Note that doesn't include existing hydropower and nuclear plants, and I reasonably assume we'd keep most of them for their useful lives.

I haven't even mentioned that we could also put wind turbine on the land that we use to grow cows. There are approximately 770 million acres of rangeland in the United States distinct from the farmland mentioned previously.

This of course assumes that we'd restructure our grid to distribute that energy efficiently. Given that our power grid is over a century old it is time for a remodel anyway and we might as well get it right.

So using 4th-grade math I've shown that we could get there with wind power and some slight remodeling of farmland. This is more rigorous work than I've ever seen from any of the naysayers who just say how it is impossible. The physics and the engineering work, and given the recent cost figures showing that on-shore wind is by far the cheapest source of electricity today I think it a safe bet that the economics work too. Notice that I left out offshore wind power too.

Now, back to the topic.

I'll do a similar calculation for solar power. Let us assume that we decide to put sunshades over all of the parking spaces in the United States. There are estimated to be between 800 million and 2 billion parking spaces in the United States. Pretty standard size for parking spaces is ten by twenty feet, so you can pack 225 parking spaces in an acre (I don't count the lanes you need to drive the parking space, and also ignore that a lot of parking spaces are compact and smaller -- for a Fermi number those two probably cancel out).
I'm also going to ignore multi-floor parking garages. My argument would be that if I use the lower number and make some reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of multi-floor parking garages the numbers again about work out.

That works out to about 3.6 million acres used for parking in the United States if you use the lower number.

Now generation per acre for PV is all over the place, with estimates from 0.1Mw/acre to 10Mw/acre -- I'd guess that is because they are including capacity factors in their figure, and capacity factors will vary by location far more for PV than for wind. Just to make this easy I am going to split the baby and use 1Mw/acre.

So you lead the conclusion that PV panels covering all parking in the United States would generate THREE TIMES (THREE TIMES!) the amount of electricity we currently generate.

My conclusion is that not only can we go to 100 percent renewables and generate just as much electricity, we'd have an insane amount of growth capacity to power all of those new electric cars we'd need too. And probably have a few centuries' of headroom for generating more electricity if we decide we need it. All at far lower costs than our current electricity generation systems.

Again, with 4th-grade math this is a no-brainer.

Only problem with all your equations. Just like with evolution ,it only works on paper . . Your problem with renewables is you can't store wind or Solar power . It also isn't a 24 hr a day power source. If areas where rain occurs for 2 weeks -2 months or in areas where it's cloudy and cold for months what then ? In a perfect situation Green energy takes a 1000 times the space to provide the same energy fuels and coal does . Plus like I said you can't store it in reserves for just in case .
Bottom line is there's no science I know of where you can make windmills or solar panels . As well as batteries , without using coal /oil and gas .
It's not the green I have a problem with . It's destroying the old current way before the new way is perfected . And seriously for what purpose ? The planet whether you believe it's dying or not can't be stopped by what is being proposed .
Musk stated awhile that one of his plants at the current production rate . Would have to produce batteries at a rate of 500 daily for 100 years . Do supply energy for just 1 Winter . For a city the size of NJ. Plus a battery made today that sat around being stored for just a few years would be worthless. So you simply can not store up green energy .
We also know that windmills fall apart after 15 years max. They also kill 100's of birds everyday they spin .

And for what purpose ? Where is all this pollution they cry about ? It's gone accept for countries that refuse to filter their processing plants .

Like I said : As a sideline it suffices . But does it ? How far can a car travel before it has to not only find a charging station . But stay there hours to fully recharge .

Butt the real bottom line is why ? I know there's chaos with the climate . But there always has been . C02 to not contributing to what we see going on. That's made up nonsense .

Finally why are you calling Wind and Solar renewable ? Both turbines and Solar panels can't be re-used and are starting to pile up . Even the Harvard study done by pro green energy professors. Admit that the amount of Land and the amount of energy needed has been grossly under-estimated
Watch Europe this winter : They are in trouble , and are just now realizing that green isn't going to cut it . They are desperate for Gas/oil and coal

 

[Zekeer]

Aside from transitioning to renewable, the elephant in the room is that world economies will have to abandon the growth principle on which they are based.
We simply cannot keep on growing the economy, it is just not sustainable. A new model is required.

There is a great comic book made in France by eminent researchers to make a lot of hardcore data be more palatable.
It has now been translated to English, it is full of good information

World Without End

An insightful and amusing look at the energy and climate challenges facing our world today. Is this the end of the world? Perhaps not yet… With humor and intelligence, “World Without End” is the fruit of a years-long collaboration between […]

www.europecomics.com

When I was a kid in the 70's . A clear cloudless sky had a grey cast to it . Today 50 years down the road . It's as blue as blue can be. Where is this pollution ? Because C02 isn't harming anything . In fact the world is greener then it's ever been :