Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

EU Drive For New Clean Energy Could See Solar Panels on All New Buildings 39

All new buildings in the EU would be fitted with solar panels on their roofs under plans to turbocharge a drive for renewable energy to replace the continent's need for Russian oil and gas. From a report: The European Commission wants half the bloc's energy to come from renewable sources by 2030, more than double the current figure. The total cost of achieving this would reach hundreds of billions of euros but be offset by an annual $88.6bn saving on imported fuel, according to a copy of the plan seen by the Financial Times and dubbed RepowerEU. One proposal is to "introduce an obligation to have rooftop solar installations for all new buildings and all existing buildings of energy performance class D and above [the most energy-intensive]." The original EU plan to cut carbon emissions by 55 per cent of their 1990 level by 2030 called for a target of 40 per cent renewables. But the war in Ukraine has spurred Brussels to seek energy independence from Russia, which accounts for 40 per cent of the region's gas and about 20 per cent of its oil supplies. Householders will pay an average of $326 extra a year under the plans.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Drive For New Clean Energy Could See Solar Panels on All New Buildings

Comments Filter:
  • Russian Economy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Caro Cogitatus ( 7226002 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @01:09PM (#62552688)
    ...go fuck yourself.
    • Russian Economy, go fuck yourself.

      To be absolutely fair, Russia has been fucking up it's own economy for decades.

  • Should be definitely cheaper than another war...

    Or at least the next war will be cheaper due to fewer resources in russia...

    • by grmoc ( 57943 ) on Friday May 20, 2022 @02:56PM (#62553068)

      This.

      Also, distributed power generation (and I assume storage must follow) is much harder to target and destroy if a war *does* happen.
      Basically, it is good national security all around.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Say no to cheap Chinese solar panels they are going to be landfill

    • Good thing Perovskite Solar Cells [youtu.be] are hitting the market.

  • Why not use solar tiles to make all the roofs instead of paying for a roof AND solar.

    • There are numerous different styles and dimensions of tiles in use across Europe. The economies of scale would be poor even just on that count. There are also other factors in play.
    • Actual legislation does not usually limit the technological implementation (a tile will be considered a panel), so you will be free to to as you wish. But I say one would go for the active tiles for the fancy (to boast about a Tesla-branded rooftop), not for lower cost. With active tiles you will be stuck with vendor lock-in for decades of a maintenance contract. Regular panels can be installed, maintained, swapped, upgraded etc. by any local professional.

  • This sounds like a great way to waste a huge amount of resources and cause massive amount of avoidable pollution in the process.

    If people were serious about a future powered by significant amounts of solar energy they would invest in CSP instead of wasting their time virtue signaling.

    Even a professionally managed PV farm would be way more productive and cost effective option.

    • CSP requires the use of additional land. That might be fine if you have Arizona to sacrifice for power, but still have New Mexico spare, but less so if you have to give up the only Black Forest you have. But most buildings in Europe have a rain lid. So yes, it might use more bits dug out of the earth, but less use of other resources like land.
      • CSP requires the use of additional land.

        But most buildings in Europe have a rain lid. So yes, it might use more bits dug out of the earth, but less use of other resources like land.

        The problem is people are thinking in terms of how things are now instead of how they must be in a future dominated by green (intermittent) energy.

        CSP does not simply have an advantage in terms of resources needed to generate a given amount of power it includes a substantial ability to buffer power for many hours when the sun is not shining reducing need for grid storage (e.g. more land use and higher expense).

        It would be swell if everyone can have panels on their roofs and a room full of LFP batteries. Un

        • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          CSP does not simply have an advantage in terms of resources needed to generate a given amount of power it includes a substantial ability to buffer power for many hours when the sun is not shining reducing need for grid storage

          Yes it does, although of a type very specifically tied to the generation technology.

          (e.g. more land use and higher expense).

          It depends on the type of land. There is land that many countries have that you couldn't put CSP on, but you could populate with batteries. It makes it an easier sell. In Europe they are using some small about of CSP on the Iberian peninsula, though. I just can't really see it catching on somewhere like Belgium, though. If grid 'intelligence' is distributed and you have a sufficient number of maintenance technicians, then ba

    • They are investing heavily in CSP. Prices for semi-desert lands good for solar energy are now such that investors have to accept losses for the next 15 years. See world record prices broken year on in Southern Europe, https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com] (2020, bidding price 11 €/MWh) https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com] (April 6, 2022, floating panels on a dam, bidding price 4 €/MWh, negative price for the investor).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But but but.... aren't we going to decouple with China?

  • Dr. David MacKay did a study on the energy needs for the UK as the chief scientific advisor to the department of energy. While the study focused on UK the numbers are based on real world physics that apply all over the world. Dr. MacKay called it an "appalling delusion" to think UK could run on renewable energy alone, and his numbers show the same for the rest of Europe:
    https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]

    Solar PV on rooftops is a waste of time and money. Rooftop PV costs more per kWh than nuclear power, ta

    • Lord almighty. Still with the MacKay. That was old stuff. People have pointed out the issues with your screed multiple times. Why do you keep posting it after asking people to point out issues suggesting you would incorporate corrections which you have not done?
      • If I'm wrong then perhaps you should point out where people can find the correct information. I can point to a very nice summary on why we need nuclear power here: https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
        In that article Dr. Ripu Malhotra uses information from the Lancet. the US Department of Energy, and Journal of Sustainable Energy to make his case. People dismiss this as "just some blog" but with that logic I can call a report from the UN on the lifecycle CO2 emissions of different energy sources "just some pa

        • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          If I'm wrong then perhaps you should point out where people can find the correct informatio

          Why not save everyone the trouble and correct what you post? You asked people to point it out so you could do so. We did. You didn't.

          • If you can't be bothered to point out any error then it must not be all that important.

            We need nuclear power and synthesized fuels to maintain our economy, to maintain our military readiness, to explore space, and more.

            Germany has been threatening to close their nuclear power plants for a very long time, but as the planned closure dates approach they get delayed and come with plans to re-open recently closed nuclear power plants. We see similar things happen in other European nations, in California and oth

            • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              If you can't be bothered to point out any error then it must not be all that important.

              Faulty logic, there. I am pointing out that you have a track record of 'requesting' corrections and ignoring them. Unlike you, I don't keep a load of text to post each time you repeat the same flawed and refuted screed. And again, I have to note I am supportive of the use of some nuclear power, but your nonsense even pisses me off.

              We need nuclear power and synthesized fuels to maintain our economy

              There is a role for the former, much less so for the latter which would be inefficient for most ground transportation. I am not sure why you keep pushing it.

              Going to space may be the largest driver to develop nuclear power and synthesized fuels.

              It would require a lot

              • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                If you can't be bothered to point out any error then it must not be all that important.

                No, it's more that you are just so relentless and mindlessly stubborn.

              • Where on earth do you dig up your nonsense?

                What nonsense are you talking about? You are making assumptions on what I'm proposing and then calling it nonsense.

                You are just trolling. I made the mistake of replying to you, the mistake of feeding the trolls, I should make a note to myself to ignore you in the future.

                • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                  What nonsense are you talking about?

                  Synthetic fuels, for example. They are not the answer. They represent a significant efficiency apart from niche areas.

                • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                  You are just trolling.

                  No, I am complaining about your continual trolling with cut-and-paste material of threads.

  • Here in weather unreliable England, on the south coast in our case, we have just installed a very unambitious twin 90 watt panel setup on our balcony, with the panels facing the south east, due to lack of space to fit them facing south. They are connected to a 800watt battery via a low cost solar controller featuring a backlit LCD readout. (Very useful for checking the energy generation at nigh... Oh wait.) ;) It is fascinating to see how the effectiveness of the panels is effected by atmospheric pollution
  • Solar panels and components are made in China. Anyone see a similarity to gas purchases?

  • This is an incredible stupid idea. It is apparent that this is an product of central European dwellers. Where I live we have less than three hours of sun during winter when need for energy is highest. The roof is also covered in at least 30cm of snow. The only solution is nuclear

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Working...