Slashdot Mirror


France Decrees New Rooftops Must Be Covered In Plants Or Solar Panels

An anonymous reader writes: A law approved in France Thursday now requires all new rooftops in commercial zones to be covered in plants or solar panels. "Green roofs have an isolating effect, helping reduce the amount of energy needed to heat a building in winter and cool it in summer. They also retain rainwater, thus helping reduce problems with runoff, while favoring biodiversity and giving birds a place to nest in the urban jungle, ecologists say." The law was actually watered down from its original version — businesses only have to cover part of their roof. In other solar power news, reader SpzToid notes that despite earlier worries, the European power grid handled the solar eclipse just fine

247 comments

  1. premiÃre publication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    premiÃre publication

    1. Re:premiÃre publication by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet

    2. Re:premiÃre publication by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      ...that's only because everyone went to beta.

      Sort of like how Windows took over workstations in the '90s.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:premiÃre publication by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet

      It's a funny line, but probably one of the most accurate looks at science fiction. Ships staffed by people who aren't very good at their jobs, using devices that are cheap and poorly designed, helmed by overlords (both Dark Helmet and President Scroob) who are as concerned about not looking like an idiot in front of their employees as they are about getting anything done.

  2. South only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For most us in the northern hemisphere, it only makes sense to cover the south side of the roof with panels. Did they consider this?

    1. Re:South only? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Do commercial buildings in France have pitched roofs, or are they flat like in the US?

    2. Re:South only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are flat.

    3. Re:South only? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Most of them are flat.

      The steel industry in France is gonna love this rule!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:South only? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      I doubt it will have any impact on the load bearing designs of the roofs. They all are designed to carry heavy plant equipment anyway.

    5. Re:South only? by BevanFindlay · · Score: 2

      I'm a recently-graduated civil engineer, who studied under someone who I think may be a world expert on green roofs, or close to it. No, most roofs are not designed to carry heavy equipment - most are designed around the idea of "it costs more to make it stronger, so don't do more than you need to." However, the load from a well-designed green roof doesn't need to be drastically greater: extensive green roofs (as opposed to intensive ones) are usually only 100-200 millimetres thick at most, and built with highly-porous, lightweight soil mixtures (e.g. pumice or expanded clay - think the clay equivalent of rice bubbles cereal for the latter). You do need to build a stronger roof, but not much stronger (green roof retrofits are possible on most existing buildings without too much extra strengthening).

      Also: yay! Green roofs are awesome (they significantly reduce stormwater volume, especially peak flow, and somewhat reduce stormwater pollutants, reduce urban heat island effect and building air-conditioning requirements, prolong roof surface lifetimes, reduce air pollution...)

  3. Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Dan1701 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A couple of hours of no power input from solar power is not, and never has been a problem for the European power grid. This sort of thing happens extremely regularly, every night. We're used to it, and can cope. Thanks for worrying about us, though; it really was extremely kind of you.

    1. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This remind me of "sun sets, wind dies" billboards that get placed in coal mining towns. Only affective if you choose not believe in things like batteries and/or you have pushed the argument to full false dilemma status.

    2. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 2

      The expected problems had to do with the rate of change, which was 3 times as high as the normal maximum.

    3. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of hours of no power input from solar power is not, and never has been a problem for the European power grid. This sort of thing happens extremely regularly, every night. We're used to it, and can cope. Thanks for worrying about us, though; it really was extremely kind of you.

      Why yes, it was. Though it's probably because at the moment we had enough capacity elsewhere to cover the sudden drop.

    4. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?

      Or is it to put solar all over the Earth and have a massive world wide power grid to move power to where it is needed?

      I suppose either is technically possible, I just don't think either is likely to happen.

    5. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Only affective if you choose not believe in things like batteries

      You also have to not believe in markets. If the supply of electricity goes down, just raise the spot price, and marginal users drop off. My electric company (PG&E) gives me a 20% discount on my summer electricity bill for letting them put an automatic switch on my A/C compressor, so they can shave off demand peaks.

    6. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by zlives · · Score: 1

      but solar wind lives forever!!! :)

      you will always need a backup power source just in case of extreme outage cases for solar and wind... nuclear?

    7. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      That's the false dilemma. Why the hell do you have to get rid of all fossil fuels? Why does using one mean you can't use the other?

    8. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by GroeFaZ · · Score: 1

      It is NOT bleedingly obvious. For once, the dropoff was much sharper than a normal sunset. Also, it came at a time of peak solar power production, early afternoon on a clear, sunny spring day. Real preparations and plans had to be made. If that makes it easier for the IT crowd to understand, compare it to the Y2K bug. The reason why nothing major happened back then was not because the threat was exaggerated, but because actual code fixing has happened.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    9. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 1

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long

      Only half the world.

      I suppose either is technically possible, I just don't think either is likely to happen.

      Instead of relying on one either/or solution, it would be smarter to combine all of them, including using existing forms of power generation such as gas, coal or nuclear.

    10. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by rsborg · · Score: 5, Informative

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?

      Or is it to put solar all over the Earth and have a massive world wide power grid to move power to where it is needed?

      I suppose either is technically possible, I just don't think either is likely to happen.

      Read up on baseload power plants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants - just to increase the diversity of power (with a gradual push towards renewables as battery technology and solar extraction improve). Some solar proponents also even support properly implemented nuclear (me!) - anything to get us off the coal crack-pipe.

      btw, an industrial scale solar molten salt facility does have a built-in battery - take a look here - its not like this is unfamiliar territory - it's been implemented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    11. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      A couple of hours of no power input from solar power is not, and never has been a problem for the European power grid. This sort of thing happens extremely regularly, every night. We're used to it, and can cope. Thanks for worrying about us, though; it really was extremely kind of you.

      You did forget to mention the coal-fired and nuclear plants that feed that same grid at night, and don't ask about Eastern Europe. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?

      Or is it to put solar all over the Earth and have a massive world wide power grid to move power to where it is needed?

      I suppose either is technically possible, I just don't think either is likely to happen.

      How about we build nitrogen fixation factories near the baseload generation, keep the baseload on all the time, and make fertilizer during the times when the energy is otherwise not needed? Nitrogen fixation can be quickly started up and shut down without damage to the system, and requires an enormous amount of worldwide energy.

      How about we build a smart grid, which incorporates electric vehicles on home charging systems? Charge the car during the day, then give back some of the stored energy at night when the car's in the garage.

      How about we take recycled batteries from aging electric vehicles - batteries that can hold 80% of their original charge, but which are no longer good enough for electric vehicle operation - and stack them in warehouses to store and release energy as needed? Do batteries lose capacity at an exponential rate? If so, those 80% batteries should last a long time.

      How about we mount the solar panels with a gap above the rooftops, so that the panels keep sunlight off of the roof, reducing [somewhat] the *need* for energy to be spent on air conditioning?

      How about we look for solutions rather than assume that everything will be exactly like it is now, except with problems that cannot be solved?

    13. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 1

      My electric company (PG&E) gives me a 20% discount on my summer electricity bill for letting them put an automatic switch on my A/C compressor, so they can shave off demand peaks.

      And the same thing can be done with electric cars. It's possible to make the charging software smart, and have it look at the spot price graph, user desired charge levels, and determine whether to charge the battery, wait, or even sell some power back to the grid.

    14. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 1

      You can calculate risk of extreme outages, and aim for an acceptable value.

    15. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Grid storage technology is currently cost prohibitive. What does that mean? Glad you asked. If it costs ~$0.06 kW to burn natural gas/coal to generate electricity that then can be sold for ~$0.13 kW any storage medium needs to have an amortized/maintenance cost less than the difference between the generation/sell price ($0.07 kW in this example) to be cost effective. Otherwise the power company is just wasting money. Wind farms frequently generate electricity they just pump into the ground rather than store it because the grid cannot accommodate the capacity and the storage costs are too high. There are several promising technologies that may change this soon but until then fossil fuels still rule. I work for the number one owner of wind in N.A. and I assure you they would love to store that electricity instead of dumping it.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    16. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Nitrogen fixation can be quickly started up and shut down without damage to the system, and requires an enormous amount of worldwide energy.

      You can do something similar with aluminum refining, which uses high power electrolysis. If we look around, I'm sure that other processes can be reorganized to make use of varying supply of electricity.

    17. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?

      Name one instance in history where the weather has been bad over the entire area of either US grid (east or west) at the same time.

      (Note: the Texas grid, which is separate, doesn't count because it could conceivably be entirely covered by a big-enough hurricane. I guess down there it's more than just your house that's pathologically bad. ; ) )

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Name one instance in history where the weather has been bad over the entire area of either US grid (east or west) at the same time.

      Name one time electricity has been generated in Arizona and used in Maine.

      Yeah, that superconducting backbone that runs along the Transcontinental Railroad ... maybe the Chinese can build that one too!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If we don't stop using fossil fuels at the rate we currently are, then CO2 will just keep building up in the air.

      Either Climate Change is a man made problem or it isn't. 500 PPM CO2 is a problem or it isn't.

      If it isn't, then why bother changing anything?

      If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.

      It is a not a problem that lends itself to half way solutions.

    20. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants

      They should be... if you believe that CO2 is a problem, if man made climate change is a real threat, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.

      Of course if you don't think that CO2 is a real problem, then burn away...

    21. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      How about we look for solutions rather than assume that everything will be exactly like it is now

      Because those solutions you suggested are not likely to happen given the current state of public opinion, money, and politics...

      What will it take to change it? Honestly, I don't think anything will change, people don't like change and don't plan very far in the future...

      I live in Texas, we get nearly 50% of our power from natural gas, about 1/3 from coal, about 15% from nuclear, and the rest from "other. That isn't likely to change any time soon.

      This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.

    22. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      If we don't stop using fossil fuels at the rate we currently are, then CO2 will just keep building up in the air.

      I'm curious... say we wanted to keep the level of CO2 in the atmosphere constant at its current level. What level of carbon emissions would we need to have? (Or, to put it another way, what is the natural "Carbon sink rate" of the Earth?)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    23. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.

      800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.

      If it isn't, then why bother changing anything?

      Even if CO2 is not a problem, fossil fuels are going to peak in production. After the peak, we'll be forced to reduce consumption.

    24. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Name one instance in history where the weather has been bad over the entire area of either US grid (east or west) at the same time.

      The US power grid does not send power all over the US, most power is used locally.

      Could it be changed to be a national power grid? Sure. Is that likely to happen? No.

    25. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.

      If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how much we burn.

    26. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      ask the environmentalists.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    27. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants

      Perhaps the small minority of rational math literate ones, but that hasn't been my general experience.

    28. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 1

      If CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be, then we need to stop using coal and natural gas.

      We can have a phased solution with different transitions to new energy mixes. This isn't something we can fix in a day.

    29. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.

      It's not even really a political one, it's an economic one. If we make things more expensive, someone has to pay and no one wants that hot potato.

    30. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      800 ppm is a bigger problem than 700 ppm, and 700 ppm is a bigger problem than 600, 500 or 400. Obviously, we can't stop using fossil fuel right now. The best we can do is use less of it. That'll buy us some more time to work on the new challenges.

      While that is all true, I would question if it makes any difference beyond a given point...

      Does it matter if the freight train hits your car doing 30 mph instead of 60 mph?

      If you've ever followed my posts, you'll know I'm a climate change skeptic, I'm not convinced that we are the problem. But I'm also willing to be wrong in that viewpoint, I do not hold the exclusive right to be correct in my views.

      If I am wrong, then we need to do a 90 degree turn and take drastic action.

      Can we start cutting our fossil fuel use tomorrow? Sure, but it will take huge, massive, international commitments to do it on the scale of WWII to do it. We will have to pour our national resources into this in a way that hasn't been done since then.

      Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.

    31. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · · Score: 1

      This is not a technical problem, it is a political one.

      Political problems can be solved too. Germany has been very active with solar and wind, and France has plenty of nuclear plants, and now they are proposing this new law to increase use of solar.

    32. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Name one time electricity has been generated in Arizona and used in Maine."

      Today. Yesterday too. All last week. Electrons are fungible.

      But I guess your response is admission that the answer to the question you were asked was "Never".

    33. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      I'm curious... say we wanted to keep the level of CO2 in the atmosphere constant at its current level. What level of carbon emissions would we need to have? (Or, to put it another way, what is the natural "Carbon sink rate" of the Earth?)

      From what I have read, we would have to cut our emission by half to hold at current levels, and that assumes that the trees and oceans can continue to absorb at the rate they have been, which is questionable.

      If you wanted a margin for error, I'd suggest cutting by 75% to be safe.

      So SOME fossil fuels could be used, but they would largely all be oil since we won't replace all the cars in the world for a long time, even if we wanted to. And a few classic cars could still be driven in small numbers.

      Electricity generation isn't the only source of man-made CO2 emissions, so I'd suggest coal and natural gas have to go outright to get there.

    34. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It's not even really a political one, it's an economic one. If we make things more expensive, someone has to pay and no one wants that hot potato.

      Aren't they one and the same? :)

      Then the only solution is to convince everyone that this is worth paying for.

    35. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Currently about 50% of our emissions.

      Of course some of that 'sink' is stuff we might like to avoid -- ocean acidification.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    36. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      We can have a phased solution with different transitions to new energy mixes. This isn't something we can fix in a day.

      No, it isn't... but from what I understand, it also isn't something we can take 100 years to fix either, it will be too late by that point...

      We need to fix it this generation, and we aren't even close to making that happen.

    37. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alcoa has been there for decades. They vary production real time with the price of electricity.

    38. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long, and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?

      Given that demand for electricity isn't perfectly inelastic (in fact, nothing is), your idea is actually very feasible.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    39. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Since when is 10:30 CET 'early afternoon'?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    40. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Actually, several Dutch companies are trying to either move their company to Germany, OR build a long cable to draw power from Germany, precisely because of this point.

      Right now it turns out that they were so succesful that Germany actually has a competitive advantage over its neighbours who don't have that nice clean and low-cost energy source between 9 and 5. I bet that half the reason France is doing this is because they're seeing the writing on the wall: clean energy is not just clean, it's also becoming cheaper than fossil fuels once you factor in the cost of pollution in densely populated areas.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    41. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're charging the car up during the day, and using it to supply power back to the grid at night, when are you going to drive it?

    42. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Considering that you quoted it, I'm baffled about how you managed to miss the part where I mentioned "either US grid (east or west)." I'm well aware that power generated in Arizona doesn't get to Maine; however, power generated in somewhere like Ohio or Maryland perhaps could.

      The point is, I'm making a stronger claim than you think: not that there's never been a time where the weather was bad over the continental US, but rather that there's never been a time where the weather was bad over the whole eastern US or western US (separately).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    43. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      We already are starting to cut CO2 emissions. The installation of wind power is doubling every 1-3 years. Already it's a few percent of total energy per year, imagine how big it will be in ten years. The emissions didn't grow this year, that's probably mostly wind power, next year, emissions will probably start to come down.

      So no, I don't necessarily think it will take international commitments, it will take people not blocking wind power. Wind is about the cheapest source of energy there is, that can be very widely deployed, allowing for the negative effects of fossil fuel emissions on human health, and the actual real-world medical costs of that.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    44. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So the plan is to install enough batteries to power the world all night long,"

      It has just to power the alarm clock, we are sleeping in bed.

      "... and then for a week or two when the weather is bad?"

      We'll stay in bed for a week, we have paid sick leave.

    45. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I bet that half the reason France is doing this is because they're seeing the writing on the wall: clean energy is not just clean, it's also becoming cheaper than fossil fuels once you factor in the cost of pollution in densely populated areas."

      Not to mention no wars to pay in the middle east.

      Only a trade war with China, because they sell solar power too cheap.

      For a trillion that Iraq did cost, you get an awful lot of solar power.

    46. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "you will always need a backup power source just in case of extreme outage cases for solar and wind... nuclear?"

      No, nuclear is out in the winter because the river is frozen and in summer it's because there's not enough cooling water in it.
      Nukes got hit by climate change as well. During those times, France has to rely on the coastal reactors alone.

      But the wind blows day and night.

    47. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · · Score: 1

      And so rather than recognize that there might be a middle ground, you flop over to the other half of the false dilemma.

      He also didn't say get rid of NONE of the fossil fuel use.

    48. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Convincing them it's worth paying for isn't too hard, convincing them that they should be the ones to pay for it, now that's tough.

    49. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal/Natural Gas Vs Wind is a false dilemma.

      You can have both. The key is we need to reduce the amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Sure we will need to get rid of it eventually, but there is no reason to jump to that extreme until we are ready with alternative energy sources. Until then we need to reduce it because it buys us more time to get the alternatives up to the job.

    50. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Perhaps that's why so many places are trying to encourage development of non fossil fuel energy.

      To use your train analogy, when you think a train MIGHT be coming, do you sleep on the tracks anyway and hope the adrenaline surge will let you leap fast enough to only have it chop your feet off if it comes or do you start moving off the tracks?

      This is France rolling up it's sleeping bag.

    51. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Power is bought and sold across state lines all the time. Ohio is on the same grid as Toronto, N.Y. and Memphis.

    52. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Batteries aren't really cost effective for storing the amount of energy that we'd need to power the electrical grid from sunset to sunrise.

      That said, even if we we ignore the possibility of storing energy or transporting it long distances to handle the moving (east to west) peak sunlight hours ... even if we can can only get half of our energy from the sun, that's still half of our energy that we didn't have to burn fossil fuels for.

      We don't need batteries for that to be a false dilemma.

    53. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Any power that renewable tech generates is good, so long as the grid can supply power when:

      1. The wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining
      2. You need more energy in one place than sun and wind can provide. This doesn't just mean steel mills; it also means high-rise apartment buildings with small roof areas.
      3. The renewable tech in your area is not one of the forms favored by Greens, so your dam or tidal lagoon got canceled.

    54. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Some parts of the developed word need nitrogen fixation, some need aluminum refining, while others need desalinated water. Any of these can be used to absorb extra baseload energy that is being produced above market need at a given time. When New Zealand's largest renewable power project, Lake Manapouri, went online, it even paid to ship bauxite in from Australia to absorb the extra power.

    55. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Cars are most often charged at home at night, when grid power costs the least, even if the same home can contribute solar to the same grid in the daytime. If parking lot power is available to cars during the day at office parks, this will help also.

    56. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Arizona's excess power (renewable from Hoover and Glen Canyon, nuclear from Phoenix, coal from the Navajo reservation) is used in California, which won't generate its own electricity because that would be evil.

    57. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In Arizona, the heat sink for nuclear is dry desert air, not water. This would also work in other dry parts of the world, such as Australia or Chile.

    58. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Coal power plants take days to change output, but gas turbines can do it in seconds. Though you're right about the issues of handling the short-term supply fluctuations in an almost-all-renewable grid, this would require some improvements in management technology.

      Only the most hardcore greenies want to go pure solar/wind though. The more realistic ones recognise that you also need a steadier baseload component, like hydro or nuclear, and something you can ready for use on demand like gas for those rare time the clouds and wind are really uncooperative.

    59. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Nuclear has a poor ramp time. You can't just turn up the power output when the wind stops. It takes days to adjust. Same for goal.

      If you're looking for non-renewable power source that can be turned on an off as demand changes, you want gas. It's quite expensive, but it's also very quick to change power output, so it's commonly used to meet demand peaks.

    60. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.

      That's how you know there isn't really a problem. In all the political solutions offered to date, not one of them has actually created a task force devoted specifically to developing technology to make that possible. Instead, they go with the concept of distribution of wealth under the guise that someone will eventually get upset with paying more and eventually find something cleaner and more viable than existing technology. Hell, Kyoto was that way, of the 157 or so countries that signed it (not necessarily ratifying it), only 37 had limits the had to reduce to (the developed world), 14 of the annex 1 countries were considered economies in transition and got future limits along with commitments of aid in monetary and technological support from the developed countries. The annex 2 countries had no limits but agreed to think about it. The benefit for them was that the first world countries would invest in them by off shoring their production needs which is why China for instance, has seen a 10 fold increase in carbon emissions per capita and India has seen similar rises. Most of Europe only met or came close to meeting their commitments due this this increased importation of goods and a global recession. Germany, the darling of the green movement got great benefits from the reunification of East Germany and they could get rid of redundant system while replacing them with more efficient systems but now they seem to be increasing their Carbon output instead of further decreasing. Back in the late 1980s and 1990s there was a political movement to forgive the third world debt incurred by the oil embargo of the 1970s and one of their goals was to either erase the debt completely or extend development and trade into these countries making it easier for them to repay it. This disappeared with the Kyoto accords. One of them I remember was Jubilee2000 and they specifically tied environmental issues into their campaigns and pushed for ratification of the Kyoto protocols before they split into different groups and almost disappeared.

      Climate change is real, it might be a problem, but it doesn't appear like anyone wanting to do something about it thinks so more than lip service in order to get their other goals implanted. Look at the space race, we didn't leave it up to the private sector to put a man on the moon even though it was more or less showcasing out technological superiority. We wanted something done, we got something done. Now, do we want something done with global warming? If we did, there would be an international organization or at least a government organizations, devoted to developing technology that could be cost competitive, clean, reliable, and safe to phase out carbon emissions and it would offer this technology to anyone wanting to use it. In 2005, the world IEA member countries spent 9586 million dollars in developing energy. That's over 9.5 trillion dollars in one year. For renewables, they spent 1113 million or 1.1 trillion dollars in one year. How much money would it take to have a lab with a couple dozen or more scientists working to find clean, safe, reliable and cost effective ways- strategies- to meet those needs and tackle the problem of climate change they claim is there?

      I'm sorry, but nobody seems serious enough to care about it and we shouldn't either. At least not until the solutions become about finding ways to mitigate it, about finding ways to make this cost effective and possible including sequestration as well as other sources of energy instead of being about ways to tax more and spend more and control over people's lives.

    61. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why can't the solution be making the stuff cheaper and cost less?

      I'm not sure there is ever an only solution.

    62. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      Nuclear plants are modestly controllable, but it is rarely done, because the cost savings of ramping down are negligible, so typically nuclear plants only ramp down for operational reasons, or grid acceptance reasons. In countries with large amounts of both nuclear and renewable power, nuclear plants operate in a load-following mode, ramping up and down with demand/renewable supply.Old nuclear plant normally offer ramp rates of 2.5% of nameplate rating per minute, with more modern plants offering 5% or greater. There can be some issues with ramping older plants because of temperature changes in the reactor which can contribute to fatigue and limit the reactor life time. Modern plants are designed for isothermal ramping to prevent reactor thermal fatigue from load following operations.

      Large coal plants typically can achieve approximately 2% per minute, with the more modern coal gasification combine cycle plants achieving approximately 3%. The big problem with coal plants is start up time after a shut down. A hot start (48 hours) can incur an 8-12 hour delay.

      Most existing combined cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 3% of rating per minute, with a 60 minute start up delay from warm, or 3 hours from cold. Modern (new build) combined cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 5% of rating per minute (when hot), or approximately 1% per hour from cold start with a 15 minute start delay.

      Open cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 10% of rating per minute, with a cold start delay of approximately 10 minutes.

      The big advantage of OCGT is that they can start from cold with minimal notice, so for short-term peaking, they are excellent.

      Modern CCGT has most of the benefits of OCGT, but a very much higher capital cost - so there needs to be adequate baseload demand to make the economic case for CCGT, even though efficiencies can be considerably greater with CCGT (62% for a state-of-the-art CCGT, compared with 38% for state-of-the-art OCGT).

      In California, utilities are building OCGT like crazy, because it's the cheapest way to provide rapid start standby capacity when the Spring/Autumn Sun starts to go down, just as demand starts to peak.

    63. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      There is no middle ground, or not much of one...

      If CO2 is indeed a problem, you have to cut most of it... probably 65-75% of it...

      Cutting 20-30% won't accomplish anything worthwhile... not for the money spent...

    64. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure it will. It gets you nearly halfway to the goal. It's not like there's this one CO2 source out there that we shut off or don't. It also buys more time to get the rest done. s long as we don't do something stupid like put up mission accomplished banners and rest on our laurels, it's a fine beginning.

      Like I said, you have failed to recognize the middle ground.

    65. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      factories near the baseload generation, keep the baseload on all the time, ...
      Base load is on all the time, running the plants around 90% of capacity, hence the name "base load"

      ... and make fertilizer during the times when the energy is otherwise not needed?
      That time does not exist ...

      "Base load" is the amount of energy you _always_ feed into the grid, hence it's name.

      However your idea would be suitable for "using" excess wind or solar energy.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    66. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      ... absorb extra baseload energy ...
      There is no "extra base load".
      Base load is "the base" of the load or feed into the grid energy. It never really changes, it is only slightly adapted over the course of the year, as it is a bit higher in winter.
      If you have like 100 plants in your fleet, about 40% - 50% (depending on your country) provide "base load", they run 24h/365d at roughly 90% capacity. Thy never change that, so there is never "extra base load" or "lack of base load".
      Can't be so hard to grasp what the word "base" means.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    67. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not even Texas can be covered with a huge enough hurricane. Cloud wise perhaps, but certainly not wind wise (forcing shut down of wind mills), hurricanes are rather small, to cover Texas you would need like 3x3 hurricanes in a 3x3 grid.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    68. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Coal power plants take days to change output ... wow and how does it work that in the morning all coal plants power up and in the evening/early night power down?

      I suggest you google how quickly coal plants react on demand ... ... you also need a steadier baseload component ...
      Base load is the minimum amount of power you always feed into the grid, regardless of demand. You can do that with any power source you wish. Traditionally that are "special" coal/nuclear plants. Special in the way that they react very slowly to demand change, they are built like that, as they are not supposed to change. That has nothing to do with wind or solar plants.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    69. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can't just turn up the power output when the wind stops. It takes days to adjust. Same for goal.
      No, it doesn't. Neither of both do. I suggest to red a wikipedia article about it.
      The reaction time of a modern coal plant is in the range of 5% - 10% of its maximum capacity over a timeframe of 15 minutes.

      You perhaps mix up cold start/warm start cycles of coal plants (and nuclear plants) with their adaptability of those plants.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    70. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A definite change in building & construction is also required. By itself, cement production is 5% of global emissions.

    71. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Open cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 10% of rating per minute, with a cold start delay of approximately 10 minutes.

      Gas turbines can do a cold start to 100% output in less than 5 mins, usually 3 mins.
      On load change they react in the range of 5 to 10 seconds. Per minute they should be able to change 30% and more.
      You other numbers are more or less in the correct range, but either outdated or just "your guesses".

      E.G. Most existing combined cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 3% of rating per minute, with a 60 minute start up delay from warm, or 3 hours from cold.
      That makes no sense. Combined cycle means: it is a gas turbine, followed by an "conventional" plant.
      The gas turbine part is as fast as any other gas turbine. Only the "combined cycle" part is as slow as any other coal/gas plant.
      Both parts are combined, but from a grid operator point of view they are "two plants".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    72. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2

      If it is, then we have to take drastic measures to avoid it, and that includes shutting down most fossil fuel power plants.

      And this widely held belief is the reason why many people who *know that man-made climate change is real* deny it anyway.

      Drastic action may or may not be a good idea, and the advantages need to be carefully weighed against the disadvantages. Modern industry *runs* on fossil fuels, and we can't just shut that off. Remember - food production at a scale that can actually feed everyone is only possible today through fossil-fuel based industrial methods.

      If your plan is to develop and promote cleaner technologies, awesome. If it's to ban tractors, then you're on the wrong team.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    73. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Sometimes there is no middle ground, that is what you've missed...

      If you're flying across the ocean and need 1,000 gallons of fuel and you take 500... taking 750 does in fact get you half way to your goal, but it doesn't change the outcome...

    74. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Remember - food production at a scale that can actually feed everyone is only possible today through fossil-fuel based industrial methods.

      No, it is possible due to large amounts of power. That power can come from thousands of nuclear reactors.

    75. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are such cases. This isn't one of them.

    76. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I don't agree, you clearly do...

      I suppose we're each welcome to our point of view...

    77. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switching from other fossil fuels to natural gas reduces CO2 emissions significantly. Then there is also the possibility of "fossil-compatible" fuels like biodiesel and new ways of synthesizing gasoline equivalents like what the navy is doing - processes that can be made carbon neutral (using nuclear power). It's not an impossible goal by far, it just requires political will or a resource shortage like when WW2-era Germany was forced to use synthetic fuels.

    78. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Unless it put you in range of being rescued....

    79. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by GNious · · Score: 1

      Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.

      European climate package of 2008 dictate that by 2020, 30% of all energy use must come from renewable sources.
      Denmark's current climate policy target 100% renewable energi by 2050 (35 years from now).
      Both goals are considered fully possible.
      It isn't exactly a 100% global commitment, nor exactly 30 years, but it is doable, and there are people (and governments) with the will to do this - simply leaning back and saying, "it's hopeless" will get us nowhere.

      Before you say, "ah, but DK is a small country", consider that several individual states in the US are smaller/denser, and could pursue the same goal since, you know, "America #1!!!".

      9 US states are smaller by area (43k sqkm, Maryland = 32k sqm)
      30 US states are smaller by population (5m6, Minnesota = 5m4)
      42 US states have lower population density (333/sqmi, Pennsylvania = 286/sqmi)

      Finally, if you need a different reason than "perhaps climate change is caused by humans", then I think we have several of these. Example:
      http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

    80. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 65 million years ago, I think it was a Tuesday afternoon, the Chicxulub crater was formed and the entire United States was washed over by a tidal wave that was taller than the Rocky Mountains!

    81. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That's the false dilemma. Why the hell do you have to get rid of all fossil fuels? Why does using one mean you can't use the other?

      Even if a fossil fuel plant could be effectively idled - which current ones can't - who would pay for the maintenance? Keeping things on standby in case they're needed is not free.

      If you want the grid to keep fossil/nuclear/whatever plants ready for a cloudy day, then it needs to charge a feed tariff from unreliable sources - such as current solar installations - to cover that. However, it might be possible to base this tariff on per-plant reliability (which can be mitigated for example by installing batteries) rather than generation method, and could perhaps be further mitigated by producers directly buying reliability from other providers or battery centers or whatever.

      The core of the problem is that we don't currently have a good (dense, cheap) method of storing electricity, since our battery technology is insufficiently advanced. The good news is that with the rise of mobile computhing there's an enormous economic incentive to advance it. As of this writing, it's still not good enough; once it gets there, we can install intermediate storage everywhere and treat electricity like any other good.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    82. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we have plenty of coal and nuclear power plants. You could actually permanently turn off all sun and wind power plants and Europe would still be just fine.

    83. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A week of bad weather across the entire world all at once? That would be quite impressive.

    84. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Right now it turns out that they were so succesful that Germany actually has a competitive advantage over its neighbours who don't have that nice clean and low-cost energy source between 9 and 5. I bet that half the reason France is doing this is because they're seeing the writing on the wall: clean energy is not just clean, it's also becoming cheaper than fossil fuels once you factor in the cost of pollution in densely populated areas.

      Germany? Clean energy??? You know they're the world's number one consumer of brown coal, which is about the worst grade of coal, and the least efficient in terms of carbon emissions (much of the energy goes into vapourising the moisture in the coal).

      Where as france is 90% nuclear and so has a much lower use of fossil fuels.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    85. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If we don't hit the brakes, we hit the tree at 60mph.
      If we do hit the breaks, we hit the tree at 30mph.

      Either way, we hit the tree, so why bother braking?

      Or we can lock the brakes, go into a skid, flip the car, and burst into flames while rolling down the embankment because we lost control of the car while we were overdoing it.

      It's a complex situation. Slowing down fossil fuel usage and output by 10% might be cost effective, slow the curve, give more time for other solutions. Also, producing solar tends to lead to solar being cheaper in the future. Which means it can replace more fossil fuel. As a bonus- inexpensive solar power depresses the price of fossil fuel and so the more expensive oil isn't drilled and pumped yet. So less expensive home heating, fossil electricity, and gasoline.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    86. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And the same thing can be done with electric cars. It's possible to make the charging software smart, and have it look at the spot price graph, user desired charge levels, and determine whether to charge the battery, wait, or even sell some power back to the grid.

      So basically, I'm going to be paying for a larger battery than I actually need, which will also get more usage and thus wear down faster than it otherwise would, just so the electric company can avoid paying for that infrastructure. Oh, and the whole thing is going to be less energy efficient than electric corp batteries would be, since it'll be moving lots of electricity through long low-voltage lines back and forth, back and forth again. And of course I'll be paying for the resulting losses, too, as well as whatever margin the electric company wants for selling and then buying back power.

      Oh well, I guess there'll be a market for command filters to sit between the car and the grid to stop these shenanigans.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    87. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      I know they have a horrible track record on brown coal. But right now when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they produce rather a lot of clean energy quite cheap - so much so the long-standing discussion about grid integration is getting rather urgent.

      I think closing their nuclear plants was the wrong decision, in light of the CO2 debate - global climate change is much more urgent than closing well-managed and quite secure nuclear plants. It did take the wind out of the opposition for the government though, which was probably what mattered after Fukushima.

      That said, Germany is switching to more green energy because they are running rather low on alternatives.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    88. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False dilemma? More like a huge engineering shortfall that renewable energy isn't even close to addressing or solving.

    89. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is, that there is no solution other than killing 99% of the population and forcing the survivors to live a pre-industrial lifestyle. Renewable energy will not produce enough energy to power a civilization. Anyone who has done the calcuations on how many windmills and solar panels it will take will find that it is completely impossible. You might crow about new energy efficient LED bulbs, but it still takes the same amount of energy to smelt aluminum and steel. You can make electric motors a few percentage points more efficient, but that is the limit the law of thermodynamics will allow. Conservation and energy efficiency won't solve the problem of insufficient power being available from renewable sources.

    90. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      My figures were taken from a 2012 report by my local grid operator, based upon operational data supplied by the power plant operators.

      The figures are conservative, but they are based upon the figures declared by the plant operators, based upon existing plant, but some consideration has been given to new-build plant. I accept that I omitted the issue of ramp "elbow" for CCGT, but that was for simplification.

      As to the ramp rate of OCGT, it varies with size. Aero-derivative OCGT (20-60 MW range) can certainly come to full power within 3 minutes. Large frame OCGT (200 MW range) are slower. Even a state-of-the-art turbine needs at least 10 minutes to come to full power from cold shutdown. Most existing plant is slower.

    91. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Let's take another analogy: suppose we're somehow capable due to our actions to melt the ice on Greenland and Antarctic in such large quantities that the sea-level rises significantly. Suppose it will rise by 10 meters if we don't do anything. Shutting down what we do completely would let it rise by a mere 5 meters. Doing something less than that will only bring us halfway, making it rise only 7.5 meters. The difference between 7.5 and 10 will still probably save millions of lives. There will still be cities destroyed, but fewer. Although your plane analogy is possibly much more relevant to the issue of global warming than my sea-level example, it does point out that your argument doesn't necessarily hold water.

    92. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "It has just to power the alarm clock, we are sleeping in bed." - and possibly a fridge, a freezer, lighting (if you get up during the night).

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    93. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      just how much power do you use when asleep?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    94. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Essentially solar energy activists aren't out to throw away all coal or fossil fuel plants

      No. Logically thinking engineers do what you suggest, solar energy advocates do that too to some extent.

      Solar energy activists will generally shout from the roof top that coal is evil and won't be happy until every last fossil fuel use is abolished.

    95. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Mr. Helicopters, are you aware you are commenting in a thread about a country where public opinion, money as well as politics are aligned to create a solution? I understand you're from Texas, so it's hard to conceive that things are different outside of your backward little universe, but truly, claiming that nothing can be done "because politics" in an article where it is actually politics that works on a solution is even for Texan standards pretty darn stupid.

    96. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're assuming no one has thought of trying alternatives. If there were ones that worked then we'd be doing them already. Specifically:

      How about we build nitrogen fixation

      You're combining two industries with two different economics. That works well at a point and then very quickly craps itself leaving both industries nonviable. Do you run the nitrogen plant to suit the power industry? Good luck getting funding to take on that economic risk. Do you run the plant to run flat-out? Good luck getting wide spread adoption without dramatically shifting the supply/demand curve and making the result nonviable.

      How about we build a smart grid, which incorporates electric vehicles on home charging systems?

      The current problem with electric vehicles is range anxiety. Not having the vehicle charging at all times will not help adoption. Also there aren't that many electric vehicles to provide any meaningful storage capacity.

      How about we take recycled batteries from aging electric vehicles

      The economics of attaching together a wide variety of batteries in a common plant like that are against you. If the world was standardised on one type of battery, maybe. But batteries die exponentially only at the end of their life. A battery that is at 80% capacity after 4 years does not have a meaningful life left in it for any kind of storage system.

      How about we mount the solar panels with a gap above the rooftops

      We already do, next question.

      How about we look for solutions

      There's whole industries dedicated to doing just what you propose.

    97. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      FlyHelicopters is from Texas (which has its own grid) and thinks everywhere in the US is like that.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    98. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      and forcing the survivors to live a pre-industrial lifestyle.

      Yep! My ancestors were horse archers. They made a huge mistake allying themselves with the Franks. Within 100 years, they lost their Parthian tactics consequently adopting Frankish heavy armour in battle. Soon, their brethren Mongols slew them down. So yes. Let's get back to those times. It takes a good few months to make a bow from sinew, bone and wood. The shafts have to be long, straight and the points sharp to pierce deep. Oh and don't forget the stirrups that allow us to use both hands when we aim and fire! Let me join the hoard now as I'm ready for vengeance! We need more land along the river banks to settle our tribe, to hunt with dogs and share our food. Destroy those Christians who want to take away our beliefs and runes. Let our shamans record our glory and we will bury our heroes in all their finery, with weapons at hand for the battles to come!
      The Khazars are with us! Let's ride!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    99. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Energy costs money, so saving energy means saving money. As solar is already cost-competitive with coal, the only ones to feel a serious financial pinch will be the fossil fuel industry and it's lackies. Well, and maybe the MIC as most of America's armed forces are "protecting" the world's fossil fuel sources.

    100. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      hm, that is strange. for a turbine it does not really mater (laymen term) how much yield it has to get from 0% to 100%.

      Even a state-of-the-art turbine needs at least 10 minutes to come to full power from cold shutdown.
      No. It should always be in the 1 - 3 minutes range. There is no difference between "cold" and "warm" for a turbine anyway.
      Perhaps you refer to 30 years old turbines with strange side effects?

      The (gas turbine) power plants I have visited all proclaim a full start up from 0% to 100% in about a minute.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    101. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wind cheapest source of energy, Fucking hilarious

      It's not even fucking close to being the cheapest..

      Especially once you add in the cost of having backup ready. (all present costings seem to ignore that little problem!)

      Next your going to tell us batteries that have not been invented yet are the answer, you live in la la land!..

    102. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust stupid politicians to do the fucking stupid!

    103. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do the fucking math, not enough material for that many batteries, (i'm lazy, I'll let you google it!)

    104. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter if the freight train hits your car doing 30 mph instead of 60 mph?

      I'd say quadrupling the kinetic energy might makes a bit of a difference. But I'm only a physicist, what do I know?

    105. Re: Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did John Deer start making nuclear powered harvesters?

    106. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      All fair points, and none of it matters...

      China, it all comes down to China...

      Nothing the US or Europe does will change anything if China isn't right there with us, and right now they are not.

    107. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I've been doing some reading on the various climate web sites...

      I have normally been in the camp that mankind is not changing the climate. That being said, some very smart people with some very impressive sounding titles all seem to be harping on it...

      Looking at the numbers put forward, we are in the 2 min warning, the game is tied and we have 1 min 56 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter. The time for small moves is past, that all had to be done 20 years ago.

      Now we need a Hail Mary pass, nothing else is going to make enough of a difference to matter.

      Solar isn't going to get us there. We doubled our production of power from solar in the past few years, but doubling a very small number is still a very small number. Doubling it again will be nice, and doubling it again will help, but frankly it still won't matter.

      Nuclear is the only power source that we have today that could replace all the coal and natural gas plants in 30 years. But it would have to be an incredible project the likes of which we haven't seen for a long time.

      These small baby steps are too little, too late. Everyone wants to say, "well, at least we're trying". That is like being in the middle of the ocean in a rowboat and paddling while saying, "well, at least we haven't given up, we're trying".

      Yes you are, but it won't make any difference. Either a ship or a plane will find you, or you'll die at sea. The paddling is immaterial to the outcome.

      Boosting solar to 20% of the worldwide total power output would be impressive, but it won't change the outcome. It has to be 80% to do that and that simply isn't going to happen.

    108. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      China, it is all about China...

      It doesn't make a lick of difference what the US or Europe does...

      If you can't get China to change, and do it quickly, your efforts are completely irrelevant...

    109. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      The grid technical paper specifically listed multiple different sizes of OCGT and their ramp rates, so I presume that they do matter.

      However, checking the specification sheet for a state of the art large turbine (GE 7HA), the ramp rate is 40 MW/min for the 275 MW model, with a manufacturer claimed startup-signal to full load time of 10 minutes.

      By contrast, checking the spec sheet for the same manufacturer's small turbine, they claim that the turbine can ramp to 20 MW (45%) from idle within 5 seconds. I could well imagine that such a turbine could start, synchronize and ramp to full power within 1-2 minutes.

    110. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      Only decent large scale storage is pump-storage hydro, or solar thermal with heat storage.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    111. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 8.3% wind for texas. http://www.awea.org/MediaCente...

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    112. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      If I have a large power consumer and I drop it when power is in high demand then am I considered a peak or base load consumer?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    113. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      If you build the factory will it increase baseload?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    114. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There are no "base load" consumers.

      There is only base load feed ins into the grid.

      The largeness has nothing to do with it anyway.

      Draw a curve on a sheet of paper from left to right, going high and down.

      Mark left side with 0:00 and right side with 24:00.

      The lowest valley on this curve is base load. The highest is peak load. The amount of energy/power a consumer is drawing has nothing to to with it (nor the question if he is able to "drop" it on request)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    115. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Your own link proves my point...

      We have the highest level of wind generation in the country, by total amount, but we're number 11 in terms of percentage...

      Percentages sound nice, but it is the totals that matter. Increasing wind to 20% won't help if the total coal and natural gas burned goes up by 20%.

    116. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Solar is cost-competitive with coal, sometimes and in some places, and when subsidized with tax dollars...

      Power companies can't replace all their coal with solar, what would we use at night?

      Yea, yea, batteries, sure... I suspect people who keep saying batteries don't quite grasp the numbers involved...

      Pumped storage doesn't work everywhere or at scale...

      Solar is just not a replacement for coal and natural gas...

    117. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      The point is what happens if a new consumer only consumes during the lowest points.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    118. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Depends.

      If it is running 24h: yes. The 24h/365d plants need to cover it at night

      If it is only running at daytime: no. The load following plants have to feed it.

      Does the factory change load between day and night? Then at night it is fed by base load plants and at day time partly by base load plants and what exceeds that load by load following plants.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    119. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by catprog · · Score: 1

      And if is running in the off peak?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    120. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then the base load plants increase their level of output. Eventually a new base load plant is build. However in modern times, like right now, I assume a load following plant will take the burden, as new plants don't really distinguish anymore between the two operation modes. Especially as "base load" plants get replaced by solar/wind.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    121. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking "off peak" is just another name for "base load".
      In germany we have two systems: high demand, called HT, and low demand, called NT. The other system is called peak/off peak, it is more for industrial customers.
      Both systems simply divide the day in two 12h periods of high (HT/peak) prices/usage and low (NT/off peak) prices/usage.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    122. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Tractors often are allowed to run on untaxed fuel, so it is theoretically possible to ban everything except tractors and say, semi-trailer trucks and ambulances. Though, maybe people would then drive farm equipment to work.

    123. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not to mention no wars to pay in the middle east.

      Nah, the wars in the Middle East were never done for oil, no matter what catchy slogans the Left in the US liked to say.

      First, as long as there is an Israel in the Middle East, there will be wars in the Middle East that the US will be involved in. I can't see that changing in my lifetime. Because of that the US can't just pull out and say it's not their problem, like they somewhat ignore Africa. While Africans butcher each other, they rarely spawn terrorism outside of their borders, so their conflicts aren't a US threat either. As detestable as Boko Haram is, they aren't an immediate US threat.

    124. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by GNious · · Score: 1

      China does have reasons for improving matters: Pollution is literally killing its citizenry.

      They are being far too slow about it, and making bad rules about it (air filters in manufacturing being madatory, but not actually required to be used?), but progress is being made.
      Their current government is taking (small) steps in the right direction.

      External pressure (including naming-and-shaming) is definitely needed in order to get the Chinese to improve on this, both on a inter-governmental level, and on a consumer level.

      Issue then becomes that, as China introduces Environmental and Labor laws, companies will shift production to other countries, where they can still pollute and abuse; China is a symptom, not the problem.

    125. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      As solar is already cost-competitive with coal

      We're not there yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Solar PV $130/MWh
      Coal $95.6/MWh

      Wind on the other hand has already arrived: $80.3/MWh

      The problem for both wind and solar is energy storage due to irregular generation. I think we're to the point where we could safely mandate all new construction be built with sufficient solar to cover their peak daytime load minus continuous base load. That would start having a big impact on volume pricing and battery technology research, but to say that solar is already cheaper is getting ahead of ourselves.

    126. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      fundamentally I share your pessimism tho for different reasons. Short of getting the population down to under 5 billion (and 11 billion is looking more likely), it's going to end badly. The particular cause is the only question.

      But... on a day to day basis, LED bulbs are a win, win, win. High quality light, energy consumption so low they pay off in under a year under normal usage, and instant on.

      I also have to say that the possibility for nuclear power is over. It's never been a significant share of world power generation and while nuclear is great- nuclear plus humans has a terrible record- essentially a major accident every 10 to 12 years with a resulting loss of use of real estate for hundreds of years.

      Coal is actually worse (seam fires) and results in the loss of entire small towns and hundreds of square miles of real estate but it is well established.

      Solar is projected to be down to .36 cents/watt by 2024. At those prices-- why not use it? It's like LED's. Lower than current power generation prices for several countries, it provides energy during the periods of highest power usage, has lower water usage, lower pollution profile (tho I'm wondering what is hidden from us that will become apparent in mass production). It's prices are still dropping rapidly (in part due to temporary subsidies). Installations are rising logarithmically and have passed an inflection point towards exponential growth.

      The nice thing is- everyone benefits. If solar cuts oil demand by 5%-- that has a huge effect on the price of oil overall. Same for coal.

      Perhaps someday, they will design an inexpensive reactor system that is reliable combined with a breeder reactor to reduce waste to 1-3% quantity. I think smaller would be better. And based on the new autoshut down modules. And with no way stupid or careless humans can fuck things up.

      But really- 11 billion people is no meat for most people (which is not as good as vegans project), lower quality of life, and a fairly pointless existence with the high automation we have coming (sitting around consuming food and entertainment- no real work to do for most).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    127. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      fundamentally I share your pessimism tho for different reasons. Short of getting the population down to under 5 billion (and 11 billion is looking more likely), it's going to end badly. The particular cause is the only question.

      The world seems very big and the people seem very small, 11 billion doesn't strike me as a problem in itself, it is the resources those 11 billion consume that strikes me as the problem.

      Perhaps it would be worth promoting a different way to live that consumes fewer resources per person?

      But... on a day to day basis, LED bulbs are a win, win, win. High quality light, energy consumption so low they pay off in under a year under normal usage, and instant on.

      True, and in that respect, I probably should replace all the bulbs in my house with LEDs. I'll take a look at Amazon later and see what they sell for... If the pay off is as quick as you suggest, then that would be a nice Saturday afternoon project to do with the kids.

      I also have to say that the possibility for nuclear power is over. It's never been a significant share of world power generation and while nuclear is great- nuclear plus humans has a terrible record- essentially a major accident every 10 to 12 years with a resulting loss of use of real estate for hundreds of years.

      Yes, and that is sad... Nuclear never had a chance, we're still using 40 year old reactor designs. It is the same reason the Concord failed, it was never updated. We also don't fly 747-100s anymore. Heck, most airlines don't fly 747-400s anymore for the same reason, the 777-200/300 are better. (well, cheaper anyway)

      I still wonder what would happen if we could replace all our current 1st and 2nd gen reactors with 4th gen. If you aren't always building new ones, then you won't ever get good at it. Imagine if airplane builders back in the days of bi-planes said, "you know what, these planes are fine, we'll wait to build anything new until the 747 is invented."

      You know what? It never would have happened. You have to take it one step at a time, instead you still have reactors running today that shouldn't be.

      Solar is projected to be down to .36 cents/watt by 2024. At those prices-- why not use it? It's like LED's. Lower than current power generation prices for several countries, it provides energy during the periods of highest power usage, has lower water usage, lower pollution profile (tho I'm wondering what is hidden from us that will become apparent in mass production). It's prices are still dropping rapidly (in part due to temporary subsidies). Installations are rising logarithmically and have passed an inflection point towards exponential growth.

      My entire issue with solar is the cost, as it becomes cheaper, of course we'll use more of it, that only makes sense. I'm all for it.

      What I DO have an issue with are people who think that solar will replace coal and solve the CO2 problem. It isn't going to do that.

      Solar and wind have the chance to help reduce dependence on coal and natural gas, and that is great! But they aren't a CO2 solution. If we need a CO2 solution, then what? Nuclear? That is the only one that I can see that actually would do it.

    128. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      Actually, wind is about middle of the field. Depending on which figures you take (this seems to be reasonably balanced), solar is the most expensive and either coal or nuclear (or on this graph hydro) are the cheapest. If you want to reduce environmental impact, nuclear is actually your best option in the short term, although we absolutely need to be pursuing renewables long-term.

      But, calculating costs is tricky, because if you want a really balanced view, you need to factor in externalities (indirect or down-system effects), and this puts things like coal and other fossil fuels as horribly expensive, and wind, hydro, and nuclear come out on top.

      So, depending on how much of it's effect you are measuring, wind actually can be cheaper. (I haven't even gone into subsidies).

    129. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      Really? I wouldn't be so sure: teh Wiki lists renewables as currently around the 20% mark for energy generation. So, if we can make a 5-fold increase on what we are already doing, we would meet all global energy requirements. That's not that big a stretch goal, and assumes we do nothing to reduce energy use (and there is a lot we can do to reduce energy use - e.g. smart heat recycling on metal smelting, to use your own example (most industries are starting to notice the benefits of these sort of energy-reduction changes). In the real world, global industry and transport are a long way from thermodynamic limits.

      What isn't possible though is a continued pursuit of economic growth (a fundamentally-flawed concept that is the basis of most of our economic theory) and achieving 100% renewable energy, but that's a bit of a different discussion. There is a lot of scope for downsizing though.

      And, there are renewables we haven't even started on, such as ocean thermal gradients.

    130. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      Then again, China might actually solve a big part of our energy problems (Thorium molten-salt reactors are a very, very good idea if we want to get away from fossil fuels). One thing about China's large, centrally-controlled government, is that if they choose to go in a particular direction, 1.3 billion people go in that direction, which no Western country can come close to - it just has to choose the right directions.

    131. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      I think something that never seems to factor into discussions is that we could just change the way we do things: maybe the idea of "you have power whenever you want it" should be considered outdated, and we move to fit our use around the supply, rather than the other way around? Having said that, there are things like pointing solar panels west (instead of north/south towards the equator) that move the production curve closer to the demand curve (if taking a slight penalty in overall efficiency). Nuclear (or hydro, where possible) taking up the slack for wind and solar variability should work (nuclear plants don't step up and down particularly well, but should be enough for a large system).

      But, why not just build to handle the variability? It's quite a significant change in how we do things, but seems sensible (even though big users like industry maybe wouldn't like being told when they can and can't run their machinery).

    132. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you slightly missed the point. They were saying that, if solar and wind are distributed, but conventional is centralized, it makes sense to put something near the centralized location. Run the centralized location at a certain level most of the time (because of ramp up/down times) and shunt various amounts of power into the fixation plant depending on how much solar or wind is being produced. Similar ideas, but a slightly different focus.

  4. Part of their roof? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It better be a minimum percentage of the roof otherwise the law will be useless.

    1. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Our 3 square acre factory is totally legit under this law, because we've got a potted geranium on the roof."

    2. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how do you define "covered in plants"? How much space between plants? Any kind of plant? What happens when your plants suddenly die?? Sounds like all the same nightmare as living in a homeowners association. "Your lawn is brown, here's a fine and it better be green next week!"

    3. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Square acres? So your factory is 4-dimensional?

    4. Re:Part of their roof? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      We found the TARDIS factory!

    5. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if a business wants to have a pool on the roof? You know, for employee morale.

      I don't know the law, plus, I'm an American in the US. But they should expand it to allow for solar water heating and other environmental stuff. Plus, allow waivers with good excuses.

    6. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your factory is 4-dimensional?

      Yes, it confuses the inspectors when they come to check on the geranium.

    7. Re: Part of their roof? by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      I finally understand Interstellar

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    8. Re:Part of their roof? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hmm, is a square acre 4 dimensional or only 3 dimensional. Does squaring double the number of dimensions or only add one dimension? Maybe maybe make this cubic acres just to be sure we're in the head scratching realm.

    9. Re:Part of their roof? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      No. But, being Europe, it's taxed four different ways.

    10. Re:Part of their roof? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "What if a business wants to have a pool on the roof? You know, for employee morale."

      In France, when workers have low morale, they go on strike, 15 times a year or so.
      It's their thing.
      Also, _no_ business has a pool, roof or not, when the 7 hour workday is over, people go home.

    11. Re:Part of their roof? by sjames · · Score: 2

      It doubles it. Consider 2^2 =4 4^2 = 16. So 2^2^2 = 2^4.

    12. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a square 63-ish metres to a side. Sounds 2-dimensional to me.

    13. Re:Part of their roof? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      here's a link for you http://www.green-roofing.co.uk...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  5. Oh, just lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their firefighters are going to love that.

    1. Re:Oh, just lovely by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Their firefighters are going to love that.

      The good news is that if the structure is too unstable for them to enter, the roof will collapse a bunch of wet dirt and water laden plant mass onto the burning rubble. So it will be self extinguishing.

    2. Re:Oh, just lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually thinking more of the hazards of the solar panels:
      http://solarenergy.net/News/tackling-risks-solar-panels-pose-firefighters/

    3. Re:Oh, just lovely by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Their firefighters are going to love that."

      A wet roof that will not gas out toxic fumes when burning? Sure!

    4. Re:Oh, just lovely by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I was actually thinking more of the hazards of the solar panels:"

      There's a large switch on the outside of the building that the firemen can reach with a special staff.
      Just like the neon-sign covered buildings.

  6. Why not roads, too? And swimming pools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were serious they'd cover their football stadiums.

  7. Re:Why not roads, too? And swimming pools? by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be fair, they do at least require the pitch to be covered with plants.

  8. Summer cooling? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's something I've been curious about. I would expect that if there's a between the solar panels and the roof, this would lead the attic to stay a lot cooler in the summer. Because the sun would be mostly heating up the panels and not the roof. Anyone know if that can significantly reduce the temperature of a home's living spaces?

    1. Re:Summer cooling? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Sigh...

      I would expect that if there's a gap between the solar panels and the roof, ...

    2. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone know if that can significantly reduce the temperature of a home's living spaces?

      Of course, it's been done every BEFORE solar panels, with double-layer roofing.

    3. Re:Summer cooling? by friesofdoom · · Score: 2

      Isn't space a synonym for "gap" ?

      A-Hur-Hur! See what I did there? ;p

    4. Re:Summer cooling? by rasmusbr · · Score: 0

      Sigh...

      I would expect that if there's a gap between the solar panels and the roof, ...

      If you recall Thermodynamics 101 / Highschool physics, gaps function as insulators, which is helpful when you're trying to keep something cool or warm.

      Sigh... back at you.

    5. Re:Summer cooling? by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The EPA has a page on the very subject, claiming that green roofs not only help with cooling, but also heating, since they act as insulators. They also reduce pollutants in the air and combat the heat island effect present in many large cities. I am not aware of many negatives for them, aside from the maintenance required for the more elaborate ones.

    6. Re:Summer cooling? by friesofdoom · · Score: 1

      LMAO, the op left out the word "gap" which is why its in bold, that's what he was sighing at.

    7. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solar Installer here.

      There are two effects at work:
        - 15-20% of the solar energy will be converted to electricity and not to heat.
        - the air between the solar modules and the roof will transport most of the heat away. This depends on the distance module-roof and airflow.

      The effect will be in most cases very noticeable. A first order approximitation is, that normally a roof is 20-30C hotter than the surounding air. With solar modules the roof will be almost the same temperature as the air. On unisolated roofs the effect can be dramatic.

    8. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it will do is lower the attic space temperatures since the sun is no longer directly heating the upper surface of the attic. This, in turn, should help keep the living spaces in the home a bit cooler in the summertime. ( But not too much since the insulation you have up there is already doing that job )

      Without insulation, it would make a large impact on how much your attic heats the rest of your home.

      Eg: My west wall would heat to 140f in the evening hours of the Summer Months since it was directly exposed to unfiltered sunlight. Put up a wall of bamboo along West wall to prevent direct sunlight on the brick and now the brick only reaches air temperatures. In a newer home with triple pane glass and extreme insulation, probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. For an older home without though, makes a rather large one.

    9. Re:Summer cooling? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Oh, he's sighing at himself. That's fine then.

    10. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fun part is, you're making a fool of yourself and not realising it.

    11. Re:Summer cooling? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of many negatives for them, aside from the maintenance required for the more elaborate ones.

      Cost. Green roofs are heavy, so you have to build the structure (significantly) stronger to hold them up.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I live in Maryland where 90 degree sunny days would regularly see 140 and sometimes 150 degree temperatures in my attic. After I put solar panels on my house the highest temp recorded in the attic was 110 degrees. This reduced the summer cooling requirements by about 1/3. My results might be slightly higher than normal though since the air return for the house runs through the attic and only has a few inches of insulation on it.

    13. Re:Summer cooling? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Another negative would seem to be that it would be hard to find a material that could last for long periods of time with damp earth pressed against it... it's a lot harder to replace a roof with growing material on it.

      It's much better protected against hail damage. Possibly there are potential mud-slide issues??!

      One other strong negative consideration would be that grass-thatch roofs are known to carry diseases that can affect people living within. That's for primitive roofs with no underside though.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    14. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have solar panels (yet), but but from what I read in the Netherlands (with our typical baked stone tiles roofs) the answer to your question is: yes.

    15. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The increased number of water leaks is a big deal. Having extra weight that pushes the water into the building rather than letting it simply run off is horrible. The company I work for in Seattle has spent seven figures to replace equipment and furniture damaged by water leaks from a green strip on our roof. We've also had a couple of small fires from the water leaks from the roof. We got lucky they didn't turn into bigger fires.

      It's my guess that the firefightings in France are bored and fought for this to increase the number of buildings that burn down and the number of deaths from fire. That gives them something to do, and it will most likely increase their pay.

    16. Re:Summer cooling? by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually there's quite a lot of experience with this type of roof nowadays.

      Standard roofs locally are covered with bitumen waterproof covering. THis is affected mostly by UV light, which is countered by layering it over with earth and having vegetation on top of it. This can double the lifespan of the waterproof covering.

      The weight of a light covering with Sedum (very small, fatty ground-covering foliage that is very robust) will weigh between 50 and 60 kilograms per square meter. If your roof can't hold that, it will have serious trouble with a big snowlayer. Roofs are mandated to hold at least 100 kg/m^2 over 10m^2, and roofs meant to be used as terrace or walked upon for inspection have to be able to hold 250 kg/m^2.

      See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    17. Re:Summer cooling? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They're not that heavy. You can get away with basically just a roll-out turf layer on top of some plastic. It's heavier than not having it up there, but it's not a big deal.

      If you want to grow food on your roof in soil, yeah, that takes a commitment. Though if food on your roof is your goal, replace your roofing with greenhouse fiberglass and grow aeroponically in your attic space, thus minimizing the weight involved. If you can swing the licensing, that is. Supplement light on cloudy days with red and blue LEDs. It's a good excuse to whip up an Arduino or Pi (overkill, but a complete system would fit) Ph and TDS logger.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Summer cooling? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I put on a corrugated asphalt sheet roof. It has to be painted every three years. I think I have the only white roof in north east Florida. Makes my place easy to find on Google Earth.

    19. Re:Summer cooling? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This is not a new requirement - parking structures and buildings covered in plants or panels are common in Germany and have been for years upon years, and buildings are not falling down all over the place.

  9. News from TOMORROW! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    2017-08-12 - A man fell to his death today while mowing the lawn on the roof of Les Olympiades. Witnesses claim to have heard him shout "Putain d'écureuils de bordel de merde!" while he fell down.

    1. Re:News from TOMORROW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2017-08-12 - A man fell to his death today while mowing the lawn on the roof of Les Olympiades. Witnesses claim to have heard him shout "Putain d'écureuils de bordel de merde!" while he fell down.

      You're quite a joker. :)
      Squirrels really are a danger to humans.

  10. A New Market Opens by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to take broken / very old solar panels from all over, and sell them to businesses in France.

    After all, the law didn't state the solar panels had to be hooked up to anything...

    You probably don't want to know about my new plan to get ride of discarded trees and other vegetation.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A New Market Opens by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

      You probably don't want to know about my new plan to get ride of discarded trees and other vegetation.

      Have them run for President as the best bush candidate?

    2. Re:A New Market Opens by itzly · · Score: 2

      Considering the cost of installation, it will probably be cheaper to get fully operational solar panels, and sell/use the electricity.

    3. Re:A New Market Opens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to take broken / very old solar panels

      That's called thin film modules.

    4. Re:A New Market Opens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, the law didn't state the solar panels had to be hooked up to anything...

      Yes, it did. The French can actually write a competent law.

  11. The law was actually watered down by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Ugh! That was horrible!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Re:Stupid. by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you miss the words "commercial zone"?

  13. Makes more sense than the law I proposed by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    That all new solar panels must have a house on them.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  14. Graphs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article makes it seem that something like 25GW was offline for the entire eclipse for like a half a day.

    Does anybody have graphs of time vs. power output for the whole day (preferably for Germany + the whole EU)? I suspect that the power dropped for maybe a ten minute period and then resumed as if it was a cloudy day -- but I need to see graphs!!

    1. Re:Graphs? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Here's something for Germany

      Looks like it was roughly an hour from the drop to things being back to normal, with a downswing of about 8GW and an upswing of about 13GW.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  15. What about Mobile Homes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is probably just a USA problem - it doesn't seem like rules in Mobile Home parks allow for anything on the roof. Will this law apply to this? Are there mobile homes in France? lol..

    (of course i'm talking about the pre-manufactured homes that are just parked in large mobile home parks and never moved again)

    1. Re:What about Mobile Homes by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It says commercial buildings.

  16. Towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just switch to building cone structures without roof.
    Problem solved.

  17. Clever move!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If oceans suddenly rise or there are storms of unimaginable force seemingly caused by global warming then I would think that people would immediately take action. I would think that people would do some of the following things: Plant things on the roof, Put in Solar Panels on their roof, Paint their roof White, Paint any roads, parking lots, rocks, anything they can White to reflect the heat.

    France will have built up an industry and have patents on technology to do the first two things in that list. Maybe it could be a big economy boost for France if and when 'doom' happens and everybody basically panics.

  18. Plants? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Does moss count?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed at first, but it should absolutely count. In fact I think it should be developed as a viable, low cost, low maintenance option. Maybe some bright fellow will make shingles that encourage and support Moss growth. Maybe you could even generate fuel for combustion engines with the shingles. It sounds like a great idea to me.

    2. Re:Plants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moss tends to damage current shingles, but ones made of special material could be useful for this.

  19. Re:Decrees everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure are a lot of decrees coming from our masters who know what's best for us. Solar panels from the French. Regulated bullets, fracking, coal, networking, and healthcare policies here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

    You're right. Companies should be able to polute the rivers, pump toxins in the soil, everyone should have 50 cal machine gun nests with armor piercing bullets, coal plants should spew as much sulphur as they want, and we should let people die in the street if they can't pay for healthcare.

    Hyperbole is fun!

    I'll explain it to you, and I'll use small words: We all have to live together on the same planet. So people (and companies) are not allowed to do things to hurt other people. We can disagree about where to draw the line, but some of the examples you gave were stupid.

  20. Let me tell you about my installation plan by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It consists of spending about half an hour arranging loose dead solar panels on the roof in an artistic pattern.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. The attic is the gap... by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Which is why attics are ventilated and ceilings are insulated. If a second cover over the roof made much difference most buildings would already have one.

    1. Re:The attic is the gap... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? A second cover isn't free, in fact it could be quite expensive. However, if the second cover is doing something else, like generating electricity, that offsets the cost. Then you have two benefits, electricity and a cooler house. My house was shaded by a large tree. When we lost the tree the second story was much hotter. That tree was our second cover, and it made a lot of difference.

    2. Re:The attic is the gap... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      You assume solar panels (without subsidies since they don't reduce the total cost) will generate enough electricity to make up for the much higher cost. I doubt that's the case in France. Anyway, a canvas cover would be a lot cheaper than a rooftop garden which is also acceptable.

    3. Re:The attic is the gap... by LazyBoot · · Score: 1

      I'd say that there's a difference between "offsets" and "makes up for"...

    4. Re:The attic is the gap... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Which is why attics are ventilated and ceilings are insulated.

      Not in our house -

      https://farm7.staticflickr.com...

    5. Re:The attic is the gap... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's well known that shading a roof lowers air conditioning costs.

      However, shading a roof might slightly raise daytime heating costs.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:The attic is the gap... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which is why attics are ventilated and ceilings are insulated

      Attics are on the whole very VERY poorly ventilated compared to a gap that is completely open on all sides. Compare any attic to sitting outside under a tree and you'll see what I mean.

  22. Re: Decrees everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the Free and the Brave: land of hypocrisy where freedom is applied differently to companies and people depending of their social status.

  23. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People made the same comment when the gestapo came for the Roma, and then the Jews. People talk about the slippery slope because it's real. In the mean time, we'll welcome people who want to build out new manufacturing workspace.

  24. Freedom Roofs by Snufu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because the bible tells us the French are a bunch of devil worshiping socialists, our only recourse is mandated "Freedom Roofs", each with eternal flames fed by coal, used electronics, hippies, and any stray French we catch at the borders.

    Better dead than green.

    1. Re:Freedom Roofs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a counter measure to the Devil's grip, I placed a fine selection of cobalt pots filled with burning coal on my roof. Take that you little birds and asthmatic babies!

  25. this is by emagery · · Score: 1

    excellent

  26. Re:Decrees everywhere by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    but some of the examples you gave were stupid.

    ALL of the examples you gave were stupid.

  27. "Just One Word: Plastics" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another negative would seem to be that it would be hard to find a material that could last for long periods of time with damp earth pressed against it.

    Well an article from yesterday discussed how long lived biodegradable plastics were when buried in the earth. So maybe the answer is plastics. :-)

    On a more serious note, ceramics? They seem to do quite well will damp earth when formed into pots. Sure a sturdier formulation would be needed, however we have ceramic roofing tiles that can be walked on and we have ceramic inserts for body armor that can stop high velocity rifle rounds.

  28. Thanks for the info by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    You can do something similar with aluminum refining, which uses high power electrolysis. If we look around, I'm sure that other processes can be reorganized to make use of varying supply of electricity.

    Thanks for the info. I'll add this and "water desalinization" (from a post further down) to my mental list of solutions.

    I had *thought* that aluminum refining required the melting of bauxite, which would make it inherently difficult to start and stop, but another poster points out that Alcoa tailors their production in this manner. I'm guessing that a "charge" of ore can be processed in a short amount of time, and that a refinery has a large number of small furnaces which can be individually shut down as needed.

    1. Re:Thanks for the info by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The original means of refining Aluminum was with fire, then it later became electrolytic. Wikipedia has all the interesting details, credits the appropriate parties, and so on.

      Some industrial processes can be run variably, some not. Obviously foundries need reliable power. It would be a shame to run out of power while you were casting your Aluminum billets, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Thanks for the info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to keep the pots hot all the time, but most of the power consumption goes into electrolytic separation, which you can freely adjust the speed of.

    3. Re:Thanks for the info by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The original means of refining Al uminum was with fire

      You can't reduce an oxide "with fire".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Thanks for the info by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can't reduce an oxide "with fire".

      technically, with heat and carbon. The first reductions were chemical but produced only small amounts. The first large-scale production was with heat, not electrolysis. It didn't become cheap until large-scale electrolytic techniques were developed. That actually happened for Titanium recently, so Ti should be coming down, but it's still expensive to machine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Re:Stupid. by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Did you miss the words "commercial zone"?

    I've seen skylights / natural lighting in commercial buildings. It may not be common but it is an option. Should it be outlawed?

  30. As usual, "clever" is not so clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The storms you offer as a prerequisite would strip the plants and panels from the rooves. Maybe the white paint could survive.

  31. Can I has discount for growing pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a green cash crop ?

    1. Re:Can I has discount for growing pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, just as soon as we can find a way to tax it.

  32. Re:Stupid. by houghi · · Score: 1

    Not only that, there are already tons of restrictions in how to build a house in many places. How high, how big, how strong. Those are just a few that will apply in many places.

    And can imagine this being extended in the future to first cities and later the rest and perhaps even existing buildings.

    If I look at cities from above, all I see is a lot of space that could be turned green. Garden places that are not used.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  33. Re:Stupid. by Maow · · Score: 2

    People made the same comment when the gestapo came for the Roma, and then the Jews. People talk about the slippery slope because it's real. In the mean time, we'll welcome people who want to build out new manufacturing workspace.

    Well done, Godwin.

    "If you put this murder in jail now, next it'll be the Roma, then the Jews. Argle bargle ``Hitler!''"

    Also, manufacturers won't likely be too upset by being required to put some solar panels up, which will eventually save them some money by the time they've depreciated to worthless. Then will continue saving them money on electrical and cooling costs.

  34. Shit! by Greyfox · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just as I was planning to move to France and buy a house with a roof made entirely of stinky cheese! Guess I'm going to have to rethink my plans!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  35. Poorly designed green roofs = nasty mold problems by bgalbrecht · · Score: 1

    My employer used to have a green roof with grass or plants, I can't remember which. The roof ended up leaking and the building had a terrible mold problem. Some of my coworkers couldn't work on certain floors because of their mold allergies. They eventually got rid of the plants, redid the entire roof sans plants and spent a large amount of money remediating the mold problem.

  36. Ivy too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ivy's a natural wall climber in the UK, and quite often reaches the roof gutters of houses uninvited. If you deliberately planted some ivy roots in a box on the roof, you'd have living roof cover in just a few seasons. It catches its own thin "soil" layer from dust in the air.

    Check that your roof tiles are properly anchored first though.

  37. Plants or Solar Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, a lawmaking body that does something useful, sane and positive.

    Imagine what we could do with that kind of rule-making here in the USA.

    Never mind.

    Never happen.

    But we might get a law requiring rooftops covered in pools of evaporating petroleum...

  38. Re:Stupid. by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Did you check to see if the regulation bans them? I doubt it does.

    Either way, it's up to the people of France. If energy independence is more important to them than skylights, so be it. If Vlad Poutine decides to cut off the supply of energy to Europe in order to gather up more of the ex-Soviet territories, the European nations need to have a way to keep the lights on. It's not a matter of aesthetics, it's an actual power play between Russia and Europe.

  39. Re:Poorly designed green roofs = nasty mold proble by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, when you get a contractor to do something, you can specify conditions on the quality of the work, such as "the roof must not leak". I suspect that may be an easier option.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  40. Re:Poorly designed green roofs = nasty mold proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easier said than done. Covering the roof up with dirt and plant material makes maintenance and inspection very difficult and the rubber membrane will not last forever. Try finding a pinhole leak in a few thousand square foott roof covered with a few inches of dirt.

  41. Re:Poorly designed green roofs = nasty mold proble by bgalbrecht · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the roof was fine when it was first built. It's the condition of the roof several decades later that was the problem. You can easily and cheaply reseal an asphalt roof. Fixing a plant covered roof is a lot more work.

  42. Doubling Up by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The weight of a light covering with Sedum (very small, fatty ground-covering foliage that is very robust) will weigh between 50 and 60 kilograms per square meter. If your roof can't hold that, it will have serious trouble with a big snowlayer.

    But will it be able to hold that weight PLUS a lot of snow? That's the main issue, you can't just max out the load because you need a margin for other temporary factors to not cross the margins.

    It is interesting to say standard shingles would last twice as long not exposed to UV... I would like to see more studies on that, though it sounds reasonable.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  43. Qubiq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be cubic acres to you, sir.

  44. Re:Stupid. by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Germany has similar laws already (albeit locally, I believe), and skylights are all over the place. It simply states that the roof area should be covered by plants or solar panels, and not what features the roof can have (such as skylights, water slides, helipads, etc.). Your faux outrage isn't becoming ;)

  45. Re:Stupid. by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Germany has similar laws already (albeit locally, I believe), and skylights are all over the place. It simply states that the roof area should be covered by plants or solar panels, and not what features the roof can have (such as skylights, water slides, helipads, etc.). Your faux outrage isn't becoming ;)

    What outrage? Its a simple question and skylights are recognized as a green technology. If anyone is being faux it is the person equating skylights with water slides.

  46. no source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a fake, there is no source that confirm this article. Never heard of this law here in France...