Solar Success in Europe

My fellow engineers and laymen alike it is very simple why the USA have not committed itself completely to renewable clean energy ,simply because of policies which are counter productive to the commitment of freeing our planet from the dangers of global warming . It is cheaper for them to continue their use of fossil fuel , rather than convert to clean non pollutive energies. Solar energy could and would be a success if and only when we changes our views of our world around us.

"it is very simple why the USA have not committed itself completely to renewable clean energy ,simply because of policies which are counter productive to the commitment of freeing our planet from the dangers of global warming . "

Actually, it is politics that is driving this change. If politics were totally removed from the equation there would be essentially no development at all. Why?, because the alternative energies (solar, et, al) all cost the consumer more money than existing technologies. Nobody wants to pay more for heating their house.

"It is cheaper for them to continue their use of fossil fuel , rather than convert to clean non pollutive energies."

Absolutely.

"Solar energy could and would be a success if and only when we changes our views of our world around us."

Not exactly true. However, if we changed our view such that we feel it is a good idea to spend more money each month for utilities than we do today, then you may have a case.

However, most people are struggling with the bills they have. Few individuals "feel" that they should pay the utility company more money. At least I have not heard about cases where irate customers call the utility company and demand higher rates. Those that do probably are in need of lithium.

However, let me ask this. Are you sending extra money to your utility company? When your bill arrives, do you stuff an extra $100 in the envelope each month? When you pay your taxes, do you stuff an extra $1,000 in the envelope?

My guess is that you, like most people, do not. It would certainly be altruistic if we freely overpaid our bills and taxes, but the problem remains that us regular folks really do not have much in the way of extra cash after we get our paycheck. So, we look for the course of least financial resistance and buy on the cheap.

My next question is, what evidence that solar is a success anywhere? The exception would be for remote installations and those cute little solar panels you see along the roadside for remote sensing (weather, traffic, etc.). However, where can you point that the implementation of solar has reduced consumer costs?

I know of no instance where this is true. Solar is a more expensive alternative to hydroelectric, gas, oil, or nuclear. The reason that the south west US is investing in solar is because the governments in that region refuse to allow expansion of building new or existing gas, oil, and nuclear plants. Hydroelectric is already maxed out. This artificially tilts the playing field toward solar and wind, but everybody pays more for it in the end, a lot more, and few people have the funds to do that.

So, it isn't politics that is keeping solar at bay, it is cost, the return on investment, and the price people pay per kilowatt-hour. That's just on the commercial side.

The private side is worse. Here the cost to put up solar panels is very high. The cost is in the equipment and installation. Now, do the math. If a $10,000 system saves you $100 per month in electricity, how many months does it take to pay for the system? That's 8.33 years. Most people would finance it and rates probably would be 10%. So, now it takes over 15 years to break even. That would be a success, but for the banking institutions.

Yes, I would love to be electricity independent, but there isn't enough square footage on my entire roof, let alone enough dollars in my wallet.

Solar panels to heat water or to produce electricity aren't cheap.

South facing glass (the more the merrier) in a home isn't that expensive, has little maintenance cost, makes the home bright and sunny, and will provide a lot of heat as long as the sun shines. Add massive insulation to the other walls/roof/floor plus install some operable insulated window covers on those south windows, and I think you'll be impressed at the results.

I'm no expert, but I'm thinking that passive solar is a way to go that will save you some money on heating bills if you live where it's sunny. That's what I'll be investigating more as I think of my next place to live.

Plus, I'd like a panel or 2 for hot domestic water and a couple PV panels for emergency power.

I live in the area north of Phoenix, AZ. Here we have sun nearly every day in the winter. If the housing industry adopted the Trombe Wall approach, with South-facing glass-enclosed walls of high thermal mass, with small fans to circulate the warm air at night, we could just about eliminate heating bills during the winter (the nights get pretty cold when the humidity is < 30 %).

This probably won't happen, because the gas and electric companies, and the petrochemical companies, don't want it to happen!

I have not investigated this, but a the cost of a custom Trombe Wall room (about $ 7,000) would probably be repaid in < 10 years.

"This probably won't happen, because the gas and electric companies, and the petrochemical companies, don't want it to happen!"

What control do they have on the construction industry or the home owner?

"I have not investigated this, but a the cost of a custom Trombe Wall room (about $ 7,000) would probably be repaid in < 10 years."

That's the same investment problem as solar. People just don't have $7,000 to add to a home and if they do they want a pool, or fireplace, or an upgraded kitchen...

...or maybe just pay off some of the bills they have now.

Still do not understand.

Why does that prevent you from building a house that incorporates thermal massing?

Are there specific laws or codes that prohibit an interior rock or stone wall behind south facing windows?

Hi;

There are no laws preventing it. The problem is that there are 100's of useful ways to make homes better, but the building industries are very slow to make them available. Here in AZ, for instance, it was only in 2007 that any builder offered solar power as an option for their new homes. There are also new solar tiles that look like real clay tiles that should be an option, but that won't happen for a decade or more. The reluctance of the building industry to change is costing us in many ways.

It's called the law of supply and demand.

Unless people want something, what other possible sane reason would you expect someone to build it?

Are you expecting builders to just build whatever they feel is good for us and tell us. "you'll be happy once you see it and get to know it"? Oh wait, wasn't that a quote from Nancy?

I think the real problem is people just don't want it, otherwise, if they really saw value in it they would demand it.

Does the wall you describe put more heat into the home than just having large glass windows that allow the sun to shine into the interior of the house, heating the floor and interior objects?

Security would be greater with the Trombe wall, but the inside of the home would be darker, correct?

Yes. It acts like a heat bank, absorbing energy during winter days and at night reradiating heat into the home.

Typically, the windows and roof are aligned so that the angle of the sun must be low to solar irradiate the wall.

That way, in summer the wall does not become a heat burden because the Earth's tilt brings the sun higher in altitude.

In Arizona the change in angle from winter to summer is not as great as it is in the upper north. It would seem to me more difficult to keep unwanted warming in the summer, but I don't know. You can always use shades on the windows.

We use either low-e glass film or extended roofs to keep the sun out of the house in Florida.

Hi,

solar electricity by photovoltaics is incredibly expensive here in Germany!

The burden of extra cost is put (by law) on every electricity consumer.

The price (the electricity companies have to pay and get back from their costumers) is around a factor of 5! above mean electricity cost - and much higher than in the other European countries.

This triggered a flowering industry totally relying on wrong assumptions and wrong policy.

Then this triggered a Chinese answer of also building up a PV industry and also selling here - naturally why not.

The result will be German electricity consumers paying for not wanted industries that are totally relying on an artificially raised much too high price and the same consumers paying for the Chinese equivalent.

The faster the rise of these outside competitors will be the better - some politicians may recognise what nonsense they introduced!

Now in the times of economic and financial crisis the first signs of cutback of support for new installations are seen - and the related industry is loudly crying about.

RHABE

I think we need more tax breaks and subsidies for solar power adoption. If the government were to subsidize solar adoption more, it would be of economic benefit, environmental benefit, and strategic benefit.

In the real world we call that an "investment". Though some short sighted cynics who don't like to do anything until there is an obvious and immediate crisis call it "socialism".

That would be fine, but it would have to be a very tangible return on investment.

The problem is that it is not the government subsidizing the solar industry, it is the tax payers (52% of the working US public according to the latest estimate).

The second problem is that the "government" takes a cut (they call it overhead) of every dollar they collect towards that goal, so we (the 52%) have to pay even more for the subsidization than the actual cost.

Third, we are broke! I would like to keep any further spending off the table (unless it is and immediate crisis). In fact, I would like to see a permanent, significant (if not massive) deflation of government and its spending.

Once the economy regenerates and unemployment rates drop to half their current level we should talk about investment. That should only take one to two years if the government steps out of the way.

All that assumes that solar adoption is something that is too big for industry to do on their own. I am not yet convinced that this is the case.

If my suspicions are right, the private enterprises and their investors should be able to foot the bill. However, that will not happen unless their is a sound business case. The fact that the government is already in the business of subsidizing the solar industry tells me that there isn't a good business case for it to stand on its own merit. At least not at current energy prices.

Given current economic conditions and the industry's state of the art, now does not seem to be a good time to place too much public money into solar.

I appreciated your posts. In general the US is not very energy educated when it comes to buildings (life span) and the management of it. Your sunshine state is really an example of it. How many last a 100 years? : most windows are not even designed to keep the "weather" outside. They are IMO designed for NON A/C, To have a steady air flow in it. Using A/C with the doors and windows available, lack of thermal roof isolation is throwing minimal 30% of your power bill out of the "window". I see that only in the last couple of years a little change has come. Use of light bulbs, home comfort, name whatever you have there. There are good windows in the US available at 10 times the price. Europe doesn't think that way. Power is too expensive, fuel is still double the price. Gas at the tank is 5 Euro= 6.5 dollar to the gallon. It all depends on what the priorities are. I lived most of my life in Europe, Africa and now close to Florida, and with all the taxes in Europe, the lower salaries I could save more a month as I do now. Money is just spent with different priorities, as well by the governments, as by the individuals. It is all the price of energy that teaches us all. The U.S. I think go to a process of becoming aware of the world situation too. It needs time just like Imperial to metric.

Where I live no benefits are given to solar users, but the power rockets up to 45 cent/kWh. With this scenario a $2000.00 hot water system, pays itself back in 2 years. And PV solar, if you look around and install it yourself, in 5 years. The rest of the life cycle is bonus.

I also have noticed your comment about the VAT tax system. In a producing country you end up with a lesser end bill for the product. Europe had a similar system as the US until the 1970's. Solar - free energy needs just finds a way to get harvested more economically. That, together with less energy (ab)used (=life style) is the way to look into the future.

That is what I thought when I moved down, too. Most windows are single pane. I asked why because you would think that it would be an advantage. There are two reasons:

1. Double pane glass seals do not hold up well in the heat and the seals break. Then they get mold or turn white inside.

2. Keeping heat out is easier tan keeping heat in. Sounds strange, but think of it. The largest delta of temperature between inside and outside is about 25°.

In the north where I lived the largest delta could be 70° to 100° in the winter. You need much more insulation for the winter than you do for the summer, even summers down here.

You are right about energy costs. Europe taxes everything to death. Here taxes are lower, but that has been changing over time and now is about to change very rapidly.

It is all about mindset. Europe is used to be taxed out the wazoo, but likes all the social amenities.

The US is more independent. Social perks are not that desired (that's changing, too) and we feel that the individual should be the one empowered, not the government.

In the US these simply is no reason (in my mind) to tax the people to death. Small government is better and it is already way too big now.

This year 47% of Americans did not have a Federal tax. That means 53% carries the other half of the nation's load. That can only go on so long before things degenerate. There is talk of something called a "Fair Tax", which would be a VAT only income tax. Then their would not be a income tax. If you are below a certain income level you would get a VAT rebate every year to cover your expenses.

It's a nice thought, but it will never happen because it wrests too much power from the government.

The government is already giving HUGE incentives to install solar electric and solar heating equipment. You still have to pay some money yourself (how quaint), but they'll pay a significant fraction of the total installed cost.

People in the US for the most part are not interested in solar. Those that are truly interested, are using solar whether the government pays for it or not.

Passive solar heating, using south facing windows for heat gain, is something you can do if you have south facing windows.

I am not in favor of the government giving away money for solar power - they are just stealing the money from the taxpayers - to benefit a few people who, for the most part, could afford to do the solar projects without government help.

I would be in favor of building codes requiring a significant percentage of windows in residences to be located facing south, (in locations where there is no reason not to do so, and where winter heating is a concern). Also, I'd support codes requiring interior shutters or blinds or shades, etc of a minimum R-value to help control heat loss at night. First cost is not unreasonable, operating cost is low, reduced fuel use would be a plus. So many homes in our area have garages with no windows on the south side of the house - it's a waste of potential solar energy, and codes should be modified to discourage it.

My Boss tried to incorporate solar on his building in NYC. He tried several attempts with the building inspector and the public works people to let him incorporate this in one of his buildings. All rejected it, RE: They didn't know enough about it. After he finished building this apartment complex and filed for the CO. They were all over him as to why he didn't incorporate any solar in this project. Duh. The very people that told him "no". Go figure.