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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 20, 2015 @07:09AM from the or-at-least-fine-pastries dept.

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

42 of 247 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Dan1701 · 2015-03-20 07:17 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:22 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:23 · 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 rsborg · 2015-03-20 07:58 · 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
4. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Okian+Warrior · 2015-03-20 08:03 · 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?
5. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · 2015-03-20 08:15 · 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.
6. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-03-20 08:22 · 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)
7. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by itzly · 2015-03-20 08:31 · 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.
8. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by FlyHelicopters · 2015-03-20 08:45 · 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.
9. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sjames · 2015-03-20 09:53 · 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.
10. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by sumdumass · 2015-03-20 13:22 · 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.
11. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by angel'o'sphere · 2015-03-20 14:43 · 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.
12. Re:Pointing out the stark, bleeding obvious... by Chandon+Seldon · 2015-03-20 15:35 · 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.
Part of their roof? by ArcadeMan · 2015-03-20 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
1. Re:Part of their roof? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 07:21 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:28 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Square acres? So your factory is 4-dimensional?
4. Re:Part of their roof? by ArcadeMan · 2015-03-20 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  We found the TARDIS factory!
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
5. Re:Part of their roof? by __aaclcg7560 · 2015-03-20 09:49 · Score: 2
  
  No. But, being Europe, it's taxed four different ways.
6. Re:Part of their roof? by sjames · 2015-03-20 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  It doubles it. Consider 2^2 =4 4^2 = 16. So 2^2^2 = 2^4.
Re:premiÃre publication by ArcadeMan · 2015-03-20 07:19 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:South only? by bws111 · 2015-03-20 07:22 · Score: 2

Do commercial buildings in France have pitched roofs, or are they flat like in the US?
Re:Why not roads, too? And swimming pools? by DrunkenTerror · 2015-03-20 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

To be fair, they do at least require the pitch to be covered with plants.
Summer cooling? by DoofusOfDeath · 2015-03-20 07:25 · 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 friesofdoom · 2015-03-20 07:41 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't space a synonym for "gap" ?
  
  A-Hur-Hur! See what I did there? ;p
2. Re:Summer cooling? by Nemyst · 2015-03-20 07:47 · 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.
3. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 07:55 · 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.
4. Re:Summer cooling? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:34 · 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.
5. Re:Summer cooling? by St.Creed · 2015-03-20 09:25 · 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)
Re:Oh, just lovely by The+Grim+Reefer · 2015-03-20 07:25 · 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.
News from TOMORROW! by ArcadeMan · 2015-03-20 07:25 · 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.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
A New Market Opens by SuperKendall · 2015-03-20 07:28 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:35 · 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 · 2015-03-20 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  Considering the cost of installation, it will probably be cheaper to get fully operational solar panels, and sell/use the electricity.
Re:Stupid. by OhPlz · 2015-03-20 07:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Did you miss the words "commercial zone"?
Re:Decrees everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 08:24 · 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.
Freedom Roofs by Snufu · 2015-03-20 09:04 · 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.
Re:Thanks for the info by drinkypoo · 2015-03-20 11:19 · 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.'"
Re:Stupid. by Maow · 2015-03-20 13:14 · 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.
Re:Thanks for the info by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 14:48 · 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.
Re:South only? by Harlequin80 · 2015-03-20 16:37 · 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.
Re:South only? by BevanFindlay · 2015-03-23 10:16 · 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...)