by John Goetz
In what seems to be a script straight from a Monty Python classic, the good folks of Santa Coloma de Gramenet in Spain seem to have found a rather novel use for the dead: as a tool in the fight against global warming.
From the TimesOnline
November 28, 2008
by Graham Keeley in Barcelona
Spanish graveyard new front in the fight against global warming
Solar panels are installed in cemetery
A graveyard in Spain has become an unlikely front in the fight against global warming, with hundreds of black panels placed on top of mausoleums providing year-round power for homes.
The 462 panels produce 124,374 kilowatts of electricity, enough to supply 60 homes for a year in Santa Coloma de Gramenet, near Barcelona. The exorbitant price of land in the densely populated satellite city inspired a solar energy company to propose using one of the last remaining available plots of land – the cemetery.
Conste-Live Energy and the local council spent three years persuading relatives of those interred and near-by residents that the unusual proposal would benefit the living without demeaning the dead. “The best tribute we can pay to our ancestors is to generate clean energy for new generations,” Esteve Serret, a company director, said.
The panels cost €720,000 (£612,500) to install and each year will keep about 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, Mr Serret said.
“This is not much, but it will do something to help combat global warming,” said Bartomeu Muñoz, the Mayor of Santa Coloma. The glinting blue-grey panels are fixed on top of mausoleums, which in Spain hold five layers of coffins.
The panels, which face south to soak up maximum sunshine, were turned on last week after three years of planning. Santa Coloma is so densely populated that all 124,000 inhabitants live within a 4sq km area. Putting solar panels on coffins was a tough sell, said Antoni Fogué, a city councillor. “Let’s say we heard things like, ‘They’re crazy. Who do they think they are? What a lack of respect’,” he said.
City hall and cemetery officials waged a public awareness campaign to explain the worthiness of the project and the painstaking care with which it would be carried out.
Eventually they won over doubters, Mr Fogué said. The panels were erected at a low angle to be as unobtrusive as possible. “There has not been any problem because people who go to the cemetery see nothing has changed,” Mr Fogué said. “This installation is compatible with respect for the deceased and for the families of the deceased.”
The cemetery holds the remains of 57,000 people. The solar panels cover less than 5 per cent of the total area. Community leaders hope to erect more panels and triple output. Santa Coloma has four solar parks, but the cemetery is the biggest and the first to attach panels to graves.
When I read this I suddenly recalled the infamous “Bring out yer dead” scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Here’s one.
The Dead Collector: That’ll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There’s your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not.
The Dead Collector: He isn’t.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good post, John.
That’s 62 tons less plant food for the planet, Mr. Serret. Thanks for that, goron.
Did you know that 62 tonnes of CO2 is about the amount of CO2 exhaled by 189 people in one year?
They have an interesting approach to cemeteries, actually mausoleums, in Spain. I was told that due to the limited real estate available, and the lack of family interest beyond a generation or so, that the crypts are rented for a specific length of time. I no longer recall exactly how long that is, 40 years, maybe, but then the remains are removed, and a new occupant moved in. I’ve also forgotten the disposition of the previous occupant, but I’m guessing cremation. There seems to be a lot of superstitious dread of the places by even educated people, leading to the lack of family interest. We, unfortunately, had to clear some power-line noise in a cemetery, and it took a while to get a full line crew who was willing to work in there.
If the grave yard installed solar pannels over my grannys grave I probably wouldn’t complain
They should atleast be able to fit some solar panels on to the tops of apartments- won’t be enough for electricity but it should be enough for obtaining hot water from solar. I remember coming into Adana airport in Turkey and looking down and seeing apartment tops literally covered with solar panels, pretty much every building. For some reason solar is the cheapest way to go in Adana.
Going by these figures here and coverting to AUS dollars, it’s just under 1.5 mil to supply 60 homes with full power from solar, which works out at just under 25k per household, about the cost of a new car? Maybe the actual Australian figure is lower because of government rebates, but it still seems very expensive. And I imagine it would take a long time to make that money back through power generation, if ever.
Anyway too much speculation from me so I’ll bow out now.
They are called columbarium and are common in Spain and Portugal. Their popularity has little to do with the price of land as Spain is sparsely populated by European standards.
This is a macabre symbol where the fanatic AGW eco-socialism could lead to.
Culling people and life stocks to prevent dangerous global warming.
It also shows the lunacy of solar applications in terms of efficiency versus costs.
http://green-agenda.com
A cooling earth (fact) and the perfect explanation by Joseph D’Aleo pointing at the PDO as a natural cause for our colder climate (scientific proof), see http://www.icecap.us takes the wind out of the sails of the AGW doctrine that makes man made CO2 emissions responsible for warming (?).
Further scientific research that undermines the AGW doctrine in regard to the CO2 is provided by Norm Kalmanovitch who has challenged Hansen:
He explains why all the IPCC climate models in regard to CO2 must be declared INVALID.
This article can also be found at http://www.icecap.us
Nov 25, 2008
Hansen Mars Challenge – Why Zero Warming Likely from Further CO2 Increases
By Norm Kalmanovitch
Even though the computer models have never yielded a single result that matches observations, any criticism of the models is met with some sort of complex justification that is beyond the comprehension of the general public so it is readily accepted by the masses and those questioning the validity of the models are vilified by the promoters of the AGW agenda as skeptics and deniers who are in the pockets of big oil.
The sole support for AGW is the climate models, and the sole support for the climate models with respect to CO2 is the forcing parameter. There is no actual physical rational for the forcing parameter, because it was simply contrived from the assumption that observed warming of 0.6C was due entirely to a 100ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. There was never any verification of this parameter either by theory or observation. There is no justification for this parameter based on the physical properties of CO2, because the molecular configuration of the CO2 molecule precludes any significant effect from CO2 beyond a concentration of 300ppmv, and the current concentration is 386ppmv.
There is no justification for this parameter based on observation because the observed notch in the spectrum created by CO2 is virtually identical for both the Earth and Mars, and Mars has over 9 times the physical concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth has in its atmosphere. Even the reference temperature value for the parameter is faulty because the maximum temperature increase possibly attributable to human CO2 emissions is 0.1C per century; not the 0.6C that is used in the forcing parameter.
There is only a single vibration mode of CO2 that resonates within the thermal spectrum radiated by the Earth (and Mars). This bend vibration resonates with a band of energy centred on a wavelength of 14.77microns (wavenumber 677cm-1) and the width of this band is quite narrow as depicted on the spectra from Earth and Mars.
It only takes a minute amount of CO2 to fully “capture” the energy at the resonant wavelength, and additional CO2 progressively captures energy that is further and further from the peak wavelength. At the 280ppmv CO2 preindustrial level used as reference in the forcing parameter, about 95% of the energy bandwidth that could possibly be captured by CO2 has already been captured. There is only 5% of this limited energy available within the confines of this potential “capture” band left to be captured. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is generally stated as 3C, so an additional 100ppmv above the 280ppmv level is only capable of generating a maximum 5% increase or 0.15C. Furthermore if this 0.15C increase has used up the full 5% of the remaining possible energy as the concentration reached 380ppmv, there is zero warming possible from further increases in CO2.
Unless all these points can adequately be addressed, the climate models based on this forcing parameter must be declared invalid, and all work based on these models as a reference for global warming mitigation must also be declared invalid.
Assuming a 10 year useful life on the panels the 720K Euro price and the 189 people-breathing-years of CO2, the cost is 380 Euro’s to offset each persons breath per year.
Is that about 500 U.S. dollars per year to negate my CO2 breath?
That’s tough to swallow.
George M
The tradition of cemeteries in Greece is even worse, again due to real estate values and the growth of cities. If you have no family grave, for which you pay each time you use it a certain amount, you can rent a grave for three years, after which there are supposed to be only bones. These are exhumed and put in a small box kept in a bone repository stacked. After many years of this the wood is eaten by mites and the bones start becoming a pile. All this because the orthodox church does not allow cremation ( the dead have to find their bones when they are raised).
As for family graves, after some years of the non activity sometimes the council takes it over and sells it to a new family, except if the family were famous or the cemetery closed for use.
Even in villages the same rules still exist. People gathered in villages because of invaders and robbers, and cemeteries were within villages protecting them from desecration. Tradition is hard to change, though many progressive village counties are making changes so people from the cities go back to their original roots to get buried.
I think such a proposal in Greece would raise a revolution, particularly from the church.
I don’t see any cemetary in Santa Coloma on Google Earth, but I do see an industrial looking warehouse district covering about 43 acres less than a mile away from the center of the city. If they absolutely have to instal solar panals why not target the roof tops of these new industrial areas that do not have any sacred or cultural meaning for the people of Spain? Why is it that these global warmists always have to stick their thumb in people’s eye?
Bruce (19:47:56) :
Isn’t 189 people about the number of people killed in the recent attack by the terrorists in India?
Isn’t this what the environmentalists want, fewer people?
Mike C (20:11:54) :
If the grave yard installed solar panels over my granny’s grave I probably wouldn’t complain
Nor do the graveyard occupants.
As said occupants aren’t exhaling CO2 anymore, they should be in line to sell some carbon credits in addition to the kilowatts. After they’ve paid off the panels, perhaps they’ll install cable and broadband. With dual purpose panels, they could have hot water, too.
Of course, in the spirit of Don Quixote, I’d have thought they’d be putting up windmills instead of panels.
This is all a lie. The panels don’t produce enough electricity to run 60 households. They produce a few kilowatts of power for around 6 hours a day.
What do the houses run on the rest of the time? – the coal fired power station that is running anyway cos they can’t turn it off just for 6 hours!
Until they develop a cost effective battery system solar is a joke. FYI I lived with solar as my only source of electric power for 5 years.
“an unlikely front in the fight against global warming,”
I am sick of the phrase “fight against global warming”. I challenge these people to prove that there has BEEN any “global warming” over the past 10 years. As far as I can tell by all the data I have seen, there *is* no global warming over the past 10 years to fight.
Once we get to a point where we are reasonably certain that temperatures are warmer than they were in the medieval warm period, they might start to get my attention but we haven’t even got to that point yet since the little ice age.
If someone can show me that CO2 was the cause of the MWP and the LIA, they might be able to convince me that CO2 is the cause of current warming but so far there is no evidence that this is the case. All I see is a picture of CO2 rising and a bunch of people waiving their arms and shouting that it is burning up the Earth without a shred of evidence that CO2 is the cause.
World grain prices have pretty much tracked climate since the middle ages. Are we to say that grain prices cause the climate to change?
I am just tired of the buzz phrases without any scientific evidence to back it up.
And when I read stuff like this:
I just go apoplectic. “Environmentalists” don’t want a review of the science because they are afraid their “reputation” will be damaged if the concept of “global warming” is questioned. So it isn’t really about the science, it isn’t really about if the warming exists or not, now it is really about protecting their “reputation”.
Give me a break.
See you on next thurseday then?
“The 462 panels produce 124,374 kilowatts of electricity”. I guess 124MW is a lot of power from 462 solar panels. 270kW per panel is a lot. I suppose this is the usual confusion in the minds of people who write this sort of trash. They don’t know the difference between power and energy. I presume they mean 124,374 kWh/year of energy. That’s an average power (if my maths is right) of 14kW. That sounds about right. In other words, not a lot of for all that money.
I have really very little objection to the project. Putting up solar panels is one of the least objectionable – if very expensive – method of “fighting Global Warming”. At least it helps the solar panel market. Putting them over a cemetery is somewhat macabre, but it is up to the relatives and descendants of the departed to accept, or object. My own way of “fighting Global warming” is trying to convince my liberal friends that the danger of serious harm caused by the “ravages of Global Warming” is non-existent, or at least non-sensical. Getting into too much scientific discussion makes them tune out, so I decided to take a different tack. I prepared the following line – at least mentally – and will appreciate your comment of its effectiveness.
” I was born 75 years ago. In that year the average US temperature was practically the same as today ( There are no really good global temperature data for 1933, but the the US temperature is a good proxy ). In the intervening 75 years the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration went up between 25 and 30%. The global temperatures in the intervening 75 years went up by about one degree Fahrenheit ( 1934 and 1998 ) and went down by about one degree Fahrenheit ( 1975 ). ”
The safest bet for the next 75 years that it will be somewhat similar to the past 75 years ( 25 to 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and a temperature fluctuation of +/- 1 degree Fahrenheit. Too bad that I will not be around in 2083 to say that I told you so”
Jack Simmons:) Well done Spain!
It’s very early on Sunday morning, but can someone please do the sums & tell me how much global warming is caused by the combination of the decaying “carbon-based” life forms, coupled with a the CO2 expelled by those working to install the graves, manufacuring the photovoltaic cells, + the GHG’s produced by the manufacture of these pvc’s, according to a recent post on WUWT, etc. Is there not a net gain in CO2 emissions?
Are we not in danger of creating excessive inefficiency in contrast to the advantage gained, if any?
‘The 462 panels produce 124,374 kilowatts of electricity, enough to supply 60 homes for a year’
If really kilowatt is meant, these are 124 megawatts or a power station one 1/8 of the output of a big nuclear power station. Such a station would supply electricity for tens of thousand homes. Too much for a graveyard.
If kilowatt hours is meant, approximately 15 kilowatt is the average power supplied (1year roughly 10000 hours). Then each of the 60 homes gets 1/4 kilowatt on average.
My home requires of order 2 kilowatt, but down in the south, where it is warmer, and you cannot afford air conditioning anyway, where you put all your food or beverages in the basement, so that you do not need any refrigerator, do not have any electric stove, just go to the next tavern for most eatings, wash your clothes in the cold mode, do not look too much TV, do not have any PC to roam around in the internet, just a few electric lights, ….
then 1/4 kilowatt is sufficient electricity supply for a home.
A little over 10,000 quid per household install costs. Lunacy!
Janama, forget the magic new battery technology. You wont see it in your lifetime or your grand children’s lifetime.
Solar, Magic batteries, wind power – you cant get around the laws of physics. Unfortunately the average punter has no idea of mathematics or science or grand scale economics.
Try sitting down and try explain to the average person that batteries do not create energy – just store part of the energy that’s put into them.
OT “Coughing up to curb climate change”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7746126.stm
“Can you spare £10,000 for a good cause? The government thinks you can – despite the recession. “
@ur momisugly Jack Simmons (22:10:08) :
You commented in your last line; “Isn’t this what the environmentalists want, fewer people?”
You’re close. I’ve noticed that many of the most fervent green alarmists seem to want fewer OTHER people. It seemingly never occurs to them that they could display the courage of their convictions and take themselves out. To them, it would be a tragic loss to the world if they died, but everyone else… good for mother earth.
Lead by example, eh?
Tom,
Maybe you can use it and tell us the results.
My opinion is that people who have no scientific understanding and have put their faith on the sayings of Al Gore or Hansen are not acting logically to be moved by logic. It is rather like being converted to a religion or sect. Their ego then is involved, and people do not like to lose face, seem inconsistent etc. etc.
I think we can only sway people who are real scientists of some sort and who have just not been looking critically at the claims, trusting on the integrity of the claimants. Once you demonstrate to them the real facts, they can change.
The rest, we have to wait for a real cold winter to make them see the light :).
Yeah, people will believe some really goofy things.
Jack Simmons (22:10:08) :
Do you think the Indian terrorist organization can apply to the U.N. for the same number of carbon credits that the graveyard solar panels are entitled to?