Although the long-liner was licensed to fish for "tuna and similar species," inspections carried out by São Toméan authorities working on board the Sea Shepherd vessel Bob Barker revealed their fish holds were solely filled with sharks, predominantly blue sharks that are classified as "near-threatened" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Fishing line tracers (or snoods), which are the monofilament segments that support the fishing hooks, were reinforced with steel wire, thereby underlining the suspicion that the targeted species of the Vema was mainly sharks, not tuna. Steel snoods are used to prevent sharks from biting through the fishing line to escape.
Fish on board were also found gutted and processed, which is a violation of São Toméan fisheries regulations when advance approval has not been sought, which the Vema did not obtain.
Approximately two tons of sharks—including shark fins severed from their corresponding torsos—were discovered by inspectors, a fraction of what would have been uncovered had the Vema not recently returned to São Toméan waters from Walvis Bay, Namibia, a port commonly used for offloading shark fins.
Vema fishing for sharksSea Shepherd Global
The arrest of the Vema is the fourth shark-finning bust carried out over the past two years, three of which were the direct result of joint operations between São Tomé and Príncipe and Gabon, with assistance by Sea Shepherd ships and crew.
In August 2016, São Toméan authorities, again operating on board Sea Shepherd's Bob Barker, arrested a Spanish long-line fishing vessel, the Alemar Primero. On board the Alemar Primero were 87 tons of sharks and shark fins. The EU Directorate-General of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare) decided not to pursue charges of violating the European Union Finning Ban, despite complaints lodged by the São Toméan fisheries department.
In October 2017, the São Toméan fisheries department issued a Notice of Violation of Fisheries Rules to another Spanish ship owner, as well as a request to the European Commission to investigate an additional violation of the European Union Finning Ban, this time by a Spanish long-line fishing vessel, the Baz.
On Sept. 12th, 2018, one week prior to the arrival of the Bob Barker in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe, the Taiwanese-flagged Shang Fu was arrested by São Toméan Coast Guard with assistance from the Portuguese Navy.
Shark species are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because they're slow to grow, late to mature and breed small numbers of offspring.
São Toméan fisheries regulations that prohibit processing of sharks at-sea and the European Union Finning Ban are existing conservation measures that ensure shark bodies are not discarded at sea to make room for the more valuable shark fins, therefore allowing far more sharks to be killed. Sharks are being killed in increasingly large numbers to meet a demand for fins to make shark fin soup.
Sea Shepherd works with authorities in African coastal states in unique joint patrols that allow shark finning operations to be uncovered through critical boardings and inspections at sea.
"Given how sensitive shark species are to overfishing, coupled with the fact that 15 percent of shark species in the Atlantic are now endangered, it is alarming that industrial fishing vessels, many from Europe, continue to massacre sharks under the guise of tuna licenses," said Sea Shepherd director of campaigns Peter Hammarstedt. "These trojan horse fishing licenses deliberately mislead African coastal states as fishing vessels [and] slaughter sharks with reckless abandon. Sea Shepherd applauds the São Toméan authorities for working together with Gabon and Sea Shepherd to bring African marine wildlife poachers to justice."
Sea Shepherd Uncovers Huge Shipments of #Shark Fins https://t.co/I1qKbFaTLG @seashepherd @CaptPaulWatson @acousteau @Greenpeace @Oceana— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1488980429.0
If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
Factors That Influence How Many Solar Panels You Need
To determine how many solar panels are needed to power a house, several factors must be considered. For example, if there are two identical homes powered by solar energy in California and New York, with exactly the same energy usage, the California home will need fewer solar panels because the state gets more sunshine.
The following are some of the most important factors to consider when figuring out many solar panels you need:
Size of Your Home and Available Roof Space
Larger homes tend to consume more electricity, and they generally need more solar panels. However, they also have the extra roof space necessary for larger solar panel installations. There may be exceptions to this rule — for example, a 2,000-square-foot home with new Energy Star appliances may consume less power than a 1,200-square-foot home with older, less-efficient devices.
When it comes to installation, solar panels can be placed on many types of surfaces. However, your roof conditions may limit the number of solar panels your home can handle.
For example, if you have a chimney, rooftop air conditioning unit or skylight, you'll have to place panels around these fixtures. Similarly, roof areas that are covered by shadows are not suitable for panels. Also, most top solar companies will not work on asbestos roofs due to the potential health risks for installers.
Amount of Direct Sunlight in Your Area
Where there is more sunlight available, there is more energy that can be converted into electricity. The yearly output of each solar panel is higher in states like Arizona or New Mexico, which get a larger amount of sunlight than less sunny regions like New England.
The World Bank has created solar radiation maps for over 200 countries and regions, including the U.S. The map below can give you an idea of the sunshine available in your location. Keep in mind that homes in sunnier regions will generally need fewer solar panels.
© 2020 The World Bank, Source: Global Solar Atlas 2.0, Solar resource data: Solargis.
Number of Residents and Amount of Energy You Use
Households with more members normally use a higher amount of electricity, and this also means they need more solar panels to increase energy production.
Electricity usage is a very important factor, as it determines how much power must be generated by your solar panel system. If your home uses 12,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year and you want to go 100% solar, your system must be capable of generating that amount of power.
Type of Solar Panel and Efficiency Rating
High-efficiency panels can deliver more watts per square foot, which means you need to purchase fewer of them to reach your electricity generation target. There are three main types of solar panels: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and thin-film. In general, monocrystalline panels are the most efficient solar panels, followed closely by polycrystalline panels. Thin-film panels are the least efficient.
How to Estimate the Number of Solar Panels You Need
So, based on these factors, how many solar panels power a home? To roughly determine how many solar panels you need without a professional assessment, you'll need to figure out two basic things: how much energy you use and how much energy your panels will produce.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average American home uses 10,649 kWh of energy per year. However, this varies depending on the state. For example:
- Louisiana homes have the highest average consumption, at 14,787 kWh per year.
- Hawaii homes have the lowest average consumption, at 6,298 kWh per year.
To more closely estimate how much energy you use annually, add up the kWh reported on your last 12 power bills. These numbers will fluctuate based on factors like the size of your home, the number of residents, your electricity consumption habits and the energy efficiency rating of your home devices.
Solar Panel Specific Yield
After you determine how many kWh of electricity your home uses annually, you'll want to figure out how many kWh are produced by each of your solar panels during a year. This will depend on the specific type of solar panel, roof conditions and local peak sunlight hours.
In the solar power industry, a common metric used to estimate system capacity is "specific yield" or "specific production." This can be defined as the annual kWh of energy produced for each kilowatt of solar capacity installed. Specific yield has much to do with the amount of sunlight available in your location.
You can get a better idea of the specific yield that can be achieved in your location by checking reliable sources like the World Bank solar maps or the solar radiation database from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
To estimate how many kW are needed to run a house, you can divide your annual kWh consumption by the specific yield per kilowatt of solar capacity. For example, if your home needs 15,000 kWh of energy per year, and solar panels have a specific yield of 1,500 kW/kW in your location, you will need a system size of around 10 kilowatts.
Paradise Energy Solutions has also come up with a general formula to roughly ballpark the solar panel system size you need. You can simply divide your annual kWh by 1,200 and you will get the kilowatts of solar capacity needed. So, if the energy consumption reported on your last 12 power bills adds up to 24,000 kWh, you'll need a 20 kW system (24,000 / 1,200 = 20).
So, How Many Solar Panels Do I Need?
Once you know the system size you need, you can check your panel wattage to figure how many panels to purchase for your solar array. Multiply your system size by 1,000 to obtain watts, then divide this by the individual wattage of each solar panel.
Most of the best solar panels on the market have an output of around 330W to 360W each. The output of less efficient panels can be as low as 250W.
So, if you need a 10-kW solar installation and you're buying solar panels that have an output of 340W, you'll need 30 panels. Your formula will look like this: 10,000W / 340W = 29.4 panels.
If you use lower-efficiency 250-watt solar panels, you'll need 40 of them (10,000W / 250W = 40) panels.
Keep in mind that, although the cost of solar panels is lower if you choose a lower-efficiency model over a pricier high-efficiency one, the total amount you pay for your solar energy system may come out to be the same or higher because you'll have to buy more panels.
How Much Roof Space Do You Need for a Home Solar System?
After you estimate how many solar panels power a house, the next step is calculating the roof area needed for their installation. The exact dimensions may change slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a typical solar panel for residential use measures 65 inches by 39 inches, or 17.6 square feet. You will need 528 square feet of roof space to install 30 panels, and 704 square feet to install 40.
In addition to having the required space for solar panels, you'll also need a roof structure that supports their weight. A home solar panel weighs around 20 kilograms (44 pounds), which means that 30 of them will add around 600 kilograms (1,323 pounds) to your roof.
You will notice that some solar panels are described as residential, while others are described as commercial. Residential panels have 60 individual solar cells, while commercial panels have 72 cells, but both types will work in any building. Here are a few key differences:
- Commercial solar panels produce around 20% more energy, thanks to their extra cells.
- Commercial panels are also more expensive, as well as 20% larger and heavier.
- Residential 60-cell solar panels are easier to handle in home installations, which saves on labor, and their smaller size helps when roof dimensions are limited.
Some of the latest solar panel designs have half-cells with a higher efficiency, which means they have 120 cells instead of 60 (or 144 instead of 72). However, this doesn't change the dimensions of the panels.
Conclusion: Are Solar Panels Worth it for Your Home?
Solar panels produce no carbon emissions while operating. However, the EIA estimates fossil fuels still produce around 60% of the electricity delivered by U.S. power grids.
Although the initial investment in solar panels is steep, renewable energy systems make sense financially for many homeowners. According to the Department of Energy, they have a typical payback period of about 10 years, while their rated service life is up to 30 years. After recovering your initial investment, you will have a source of clean and free electricity for about two decades.
Plus, even if you have a large home or find you need more solar panels than you initially thought you would, keep in mind that there are both federal and local tax credits, rebates and other incentives to help you save on your solar power system.
To get a free, no-obligation quote and see how much a solar panel system would cost for your home, fill out the 30-second form below.
Sea Shepherd became aware of the spill on Sunday after concerned citizens started asking what the white goo was and was it hazardous. The Hong Kong government had posted some very small (A4) printed notices at the Gazetted beaches but to this date has not issued any stronger public warnings. In fact the new Under-Secretary for the Environment, Tse Chin-wan has claimed that everything is under control and the spill poses no concern to public health.
11 Beaches Closed in Hong Kong After 9,000-Ton #PalmOil Spill https://t.co/tj8OkCeu4s @RnfrstAlliance @Waterkeeper @seashepherd @RAN— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1502117612.0
Concerned members of the public disagree with this statement after witnessing first hand on their beaches, so they have mobilized to clean what the government should be cleaning. In 2012 there was a huge spill of plastic pellets that covered the beaches of Hong Kong after a ship lost six containers in a typhoon. The Hong Kong public are very much aware of the limitations any government has when faced with an accident of such a scale, and are keen to volunteer their help.
On Aug. 8, Sea Shepherd Global's Asia Director Gary Stokes wrote an open letter to the director of the Marine Department and other government departments to offer assistance similar to what was offered in 2012. So far Sea Shepherd has only received a "thank you, we'll get back to you" reply.
During one of the patrols on the Amberjack vessel, Sea Shepherd documented fish feeding on the palm oil, almost in a "state of frenzy." It is still unclear as to how the palm oil will affect fish, however there have been an increased amount of dead fish washing up on the beaches.
While the palm oil itself is not hazardous to humans, the issue is the bacteria it collects that grows on it. The palm oil has a melting point of 35˚C so in the water remains in a solid form. When it hits the beaches or rocky coastlines it melts. We have found it seeping 4 inches into the sand where it then cools and regains a solid form. This does not bode well at all as it will then take 30 days or so to break down. Much is washed back out to sea, creating an oil slick that reduces oxygen levels in the water in much the same was as "red tide" events.
Similar spills in the UK resulted in the UK Government issuing a public warning to all small children and dogs to avoid the beaches. "In Hong Kong we have witnessed kids playing in amongst the palm oil. Parents said that they have heard it's 'perfectly safe' from the government," said Gary Stokes. "The sad reality is our addiction to palm oil that is wiping out rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia to supply our addiction to processed snack foods. As a double environmental hit, this palm oil likely cost rainforest species their habitat and now pollutes the marine habitat, threatening the ocean life of Hong Kong."
Families on the beaches in Hong Kong despite the lumps of palm oil everywhere. Andy Stokes / Sea Shepherd
Clean up operations continue with volunteers from all over Hong Kong hitting the beaches of Lamma Island where the effects were worst felt. "At times like this everyday heroes appear from the midst and step up when needed and a special acknowledgement must go out to Robert Lockyer, Keilem Ng and Julia Leung amongst many who have been working every day on the beaches coordinating volunteers," said Stokes.
The wild and remote coast of British Columbia Canada is the perfect habitat for making wild salmon. Rain-soaked watersheds, clean gravel for spawning, 1,000s of km of kelp forested nursery areas in food-rich green coastal waters. Sea birds, seals and whales follow the massive silvery schools preying on the weaker fish keeping the runs strong and healthy and the whole coasts from indigenous cultures to bears and eagles set their clocks to the return of the salmon in the fall—an abundance of food that nourishes everyone through the lean winter months. Salmon feed the trees that make the oxygen we breathe, they are one of the power lines that fuel our world.
In the 1970s, Norsk Hydro in Norway began farming salmon in pens in the ocean and today a farmed salmon is worth more to Norwegians than a barrel of oil. The industry has become as rapacious as the oil industry. With more than 900 farms dotting their coast, they have now spread across temperate coastlines worldwide and unfortunately they took their prize livestock with them, the Atlantic salmon.
Biologists, fishermen, indigenous leaders and senior Fisheries and Oceans Canada bureaucrats warned that allowing Atlantic salmon into BC was a dangerous game of "Russian Roulette." Every farm fish carried the potential for a disease that could spread among Pacific salmon. Importing exotic species is one of the greatest causes of the global loss of biodiversity. A member of the Norwegian Parliament, Jon Lilletun, warned the Canadian Senate:
However, caution was tossed aside and three Norwegian companies now use the coast of BC to farm millions of Atlantic salmon, with most of the attending environmental damages attributed to the industry at home sea lice, disease, drugs, pollution. As a biologist studying whales as the industry moved in, I have witnessed the crushing impact of this industry first hand; unprecedented toxic algae blooms, the whales were displaced by high-amplitude "seal scarers," escaped Atlantics in Pacific rivers, sea lice eating the majority of wild salmon to the point of death and today I am tracking salmon farm viruses plaguing the industry worldwide. The industry had become the dominant "user group" of the BC coast. There was no touching them. The Norwegian scientists I turned to for help suggested I look the other way, they said the industry and the Canadian government would make life difficult for me.
I have now published more than 20 scientific papers on the impact of salmon farms; but like all the papers on the impact of salmon farms, they have been ignored. It's like climate change science or the tobacco industry.
The year that salmon farms were placed on the Fraser sockeye salmon migration route, the largest salmon run in the world, the decline began. Mysteriously millions died in the river just before spawning. When a Canadian government scientist pinpointed a virus flourishing in the farms (salmon leukemia virus), she was muzzled and prohibited from attending meetings on the collapse of the Fraser sockeye salmon. Last year was the lowest return ever recorded, while Alaska, which prohibits salmon farms continues to have enormous returns.
Recent scientific paper reports orcas in BC are starving, increasingly unable to carry their young full term and threatened to extinction because Fraser River salmon have declined so precipitously. Despite this, the Canadian government has not reported any further on the virus thought to be killing Fraser River salmon.
The lab I work with was stripped of its North American reference lab status when he detected the notorious farm salmon virus ISAV in the samples I sent to him for testing. Infectious salmon anemia a member of the influenza family, is internationally reportable which means it can impact trade as countries close their borders to protect their fish. In 2016, we published on the presence of this virus in BC in a leading virology journal and yet Canada continues to ignore the evidence and so the farmed salmon market remains unperturbed.
I am currently being sued by the largest salmon farming corporation in the world, based in Norway, for touching a farm with a teaspoon to collect a bird dropping for testing.
This spring, 17 years after I discovered sea lice from Atlantic salmon farms are eating wild salmon to death, the epidemic continues. The number of young salmon heading to sea in my research area is so low I have to wonder did I see them off into extinction?
However, there are other runs of wild BC salmon that might still be saved and the good news is that a very simple action by the public could make all the difference for the 100 species that wild salmon feed along the eastern Pacific Ocean. Don't buy farmed salmon. How can you tell if it is farmed? Farmed salmon has bright white stripes of fat due to its docile captive life.
The orange coloring is selected by the grower and added to the feed.
In 2016, Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd sent me a ship and crew (see video below) and together we pulled away the curtain of secrecy this industry cloaks itself in. This led to the first images of wild fish trapped in the pens where they were attacked by the farm fish, diseased farm salmon and the large schools of herring behaving like trained dogs hurrying to the farm nets every time the feeders went on.
Alexandra Morton is an independent biologist who has worked to protect wild salmon from farms for 31 years.
This year, actress Michelle Rodriguez—best known for her role as Letty Ortiz in the blockbuster franchise The Fast and the Furious—joined the all-woman survey team known as Operation Ice Watch. The group was led by Sea Shepherd Toronto coordinator Brigitte Breau and also included Yana Watson, the wife of Sea Shepherd leader Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd advisory board member Clementine Pallanca and Canadian animal rights lawyer Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice.
The group was accompanied by a three-person documentary crew: French photojournalist Bernard Sidler, Australian videographer Jasmine Lord and Toronto-based Czech photographer Marketa Schusterova.
Since Captain Watson first founded Sea Shepherd 40 years ago in 1977, much has changed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Not all whitecoat seals are clubbed to death on the ice (shotguns are also permitted now), the kill quota is almost twice what it was then. Since 2011, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been allowing the slaughter of 400,000 seals they define as "adult" although many are no more than six weeks old.
Canadian seal products are banned in Europe and in the U.S. Regardless of the quota that has allowed sealers to kill 2.4 million seals over the last six years, only around 350,000 have actually been slaughtered in total because of a scarcity of markets.
However, there is one very significant change that the world needs to know.
Where is the Ice?
Harp seals cannot give birth to pups unless there is ice for them to be born upon. The team of Operation Ice Watch had trouble finding any substantial ice during its investigation.
Earlier in the week, the Operation Ice Watch crew found a couple of small patches along the coast of Cape Breton containing a few hundred seals and their pups. Two days later that patch was gone, broken up by high winds. It was found again two days later, more broken up and with fewer seals. Most likely the seal pups drowned.
There should be more than 200,000 seal pups in the Gulf yet no one seems to know where they are.
What the Operation Ice Watch team witnessed is something that Sea Shepherd has never witnessed before—a completely ice-free and seal-free Gulf. This alarming sight means that without ice, seal pups cannot be born. They are being birthed into the sea, only to drown or forced up on land where they have little chance of survival.
Despite the lack of ice, the Canadian government has issued a kill quota once again of 400,000 seals for the year 2017. This is an astounding figure when tens of thousands of seals may have already perished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year due for lack of ice.
Captain Watson and Sea Shepherd feel this should be declared a national emergency and a clear warning that climate change is accelerating faster than authorities anticipate.
Brigitte Bardot and Michelle Rodriguez: Posing With Seals Then and Now
Captain Paul Watson sent the all-female crew to the ice to commemorate the courage of Brigitte Bardot when she went to the ice in 1977 to focus international attention of the slaughter of seals. A photo of Bardot posting with a seal brought world attention to the cause and the need to protect harp seals. It became a pivotal point in the fight to stop this annual Canadian obscenity of cruelty and mass slaughter.
Bardot and Seal, 1977.
In recognition of Bardot's famous picture, taken 40 years ago this March, Rodriguez posed with a whitecoat baby seal in her own 21st Century version of the iconic photo.
Michelle Rodriguez posed with a whitecoat baby seal in her own 21st Century version of the iconic photo.Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
"People listen to celebrities," said Captain Watson. "Michelle has over 13 million friends on her Facebook page along with an international following. This helps to get the message out that now the seals are not just threatened by human hunting, but even more threatened by climate change and the loss of ice. Not content to kill the babies, mankind has now wiped out the nurseries."
However, unlike the ice conditions of 1977 which made Bardot's photoshoot a relatively safe one, it was not so easy to recreate the shot in 2017. The ice was so broken up and thin that Sea Shepherd's helicopter could not land. Rodriguez, along with Yana Watson, Sidler and Lord had to hop from one small pan of ice to another just to reach the seals.
Despite the challenges, Rodriguez was thrilled to meet the seals on the small patch of ice.
"Seeing these beautiful creatures and understanding their place in the ecosystem, I'm saddened the Canadian government has been so short sighted in failing to prevent a massive ecological catastrophe," said Rodriguez. "It's sad to know the truth and watch the world turn a blind eye."