Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan

[be.open]

Would be interested to know which direction public opinion is blowing on these policies.

Tell me, what happened to the previous energy security plan for Europe, which relied on hydrogen? More precisely, a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas in a proportion of about 80 to 20 percent to compensate for the excess volatility of hydrogen. Europe does not have enough natural gas to meet its energy needs, but what I think is enough to mix it with hydrogen and get a low-carbon renewable clean fuel that can be stored in Europe's existing underground gas storage facilities, transported through existing gas pipelines and delivered to the final to the consumer through existing gas filling stations. Europe only needs to build a few hydrogen plants and the issue of cheap clean energy will be solved. Why this masturbation with solar panels, which will be planned unprofitable and will never pay off in more than half of Europe due to the unsuitable climate? Have European politicians completely lost their minds?

[stompix]

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

There were major problems
- you get energy only during a certain time table so even if you import energy for a longer period let's say 8 hours instead of 4 you still have to make it for the other 16, so what might look like twice the production is still only a 25% reduction in storage capacity
- complete unpredictability, it's one thing importing from a country with 5 nuclear powerplants of 1000MW, another from 500 10MW solar farms, you constantly need to balance the grid and some countries are not interested in this expensive interconnection if there is no guarantee for the supply
- solar energy is not cheap, it's still paid for by the population by the government subsidies, which cease to exist once it's exported, making it not cost-competitive
- everyone wants to reach energy independence, even if it's green you still depend on your neighbors, so they would rather spend billions for extra generation and storage capacities than interconnections.

One of the biggest items used to produce Solar Panels is coal, so we are still extracting
fossil fuels to create Solar.

Coal is not used directly in the production of solar panels and if you think the coal burned for the energy required to manufacture that's a nonargument, hydroelectricity is only produced after we've built a thousand ton damn made of concrete using also energy, burning thousands of tons of oil to move all that material and the machines, if the energy that is used to produce panels is green then there is no coal being burned.





 

[jackg]

On top of that, there are parts of EU that don't have that much sunlight to begin with. The solar panels would work on a much reduced capacity at all times.

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

I think it's probably about as easy as putting down cabling for the Internet in the ocean, those take a lot of insulating and are quite expensive to install but once they're there they're quite easy to repair (and they're prjbably quite cheap compared to a government's normal budget).

The UK, Norway, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark will invest about 135 billion euro into building wind turbines in the North Sea.

They already have a lot of offshore wind turbines and I think Denmark can already produce half of its electricity from wind and the UK about a quarter (those turbines are huge though too - the UK only has 11,000 which seems a very small number considering all the infrastructure running).

[Fortify]

It's probably something Spain and Greece could do well having but I'm not sure if there's any other country that gets a good amount of sun.

If they tried making rooftop wind turbines that were quiet and stable enough, you'd be able to produce a lot of electricity from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden (and probably most of the rest of Northern Europe).

The rise in fuel price is probably good in a way as it might make renewables seem a more attractive source (the EU already sources half of it's electricity from renewables). I think Denmark is able to source half of its electricity usage by wind too.

It'd probably also be useful to push efficiency, a modern mobile phone uses very little electricity when compared to other things (boiling a kettle uses about the same energy as giving a phone a day's charge).

The UK already has huge amounts of wind energy located around the country - both on and off shore. It would be good to get more variation with solar panels, tidal energy and even more nuclear energy. This idea seems to be long overdue and could have been implemented a decade ago, so I guess we should applaud Russia for spurring Europe into this plan of action since they started the war in Ukraine. The only downside I see and one that is often overlooked is how dirty the mining process can be when extracting all the rare metals that are used within these solar panels. Another key factor that will help with the adoption of renewables are constant increases in battery storage tech so it can last longer.

[yhiaali3]

There is a question: Why did Europe take so long to turn to clean solar energy instead of relying on Russian fossil gas that pollutes the environment, but I think the reason is economic in the first place, Russian gas is much cheaper than solar energy costs, especially if we consider the costs of maintenance and other requirements for solar energy such as batteries Which must be changed every year or two at the most, and this causes pollution to the environment as well, in addition to that, we also do not forget that the cold climate most of the year does not help a lot with the total dependence on solar energy.

[pooya87]

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

I'm not an expert in this field but I think it is impossible and here is why:
- One big problem would be the distance. A country that has a lot of sunlight is far from another country with little sunlight.
- We know the problem when transmitting electricity is resistance and the solution to that is to increase the voltage significantly for long distances. They seem to be using 155,000 to 765,000 volts for a max 500 km distance.
- The solar panels don't seem to be able to provide any more than 0.5 volt per cell (panels have between 36 to 144 cells so 72 vols max per panel).

[PrivacyG]

Easier said than done.  Solar panels are cool and all, but then you think about it and in some countries solar is not the way to go.  Would have been a more intelligent idea maybe to have free energy technology mandatory rather than solar panels.

You will have houses with solar panels more efficient than others.  Then when you think about it, is it fair for the owner of a house with little to no sunlight to be obliged to pay the same price for solar panels that the owner of a very sunny house has to pay?  This money could be invested in other technology such as windmills, which may be more efficient for the area the former lives in.

What I hate about it is that this is a rather political measure than one that is good for the citizens of EU.  The quote from OP has Russia mentioned 9 times in it.  This sounds like a plan made more to just p*ss off Russia when it could have been a plan to just make Europe more green and efficient overall.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[Moneyprism]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

To be clear on this new regulation, This is a mandatory requirement for new building and not on the existing one or houses of normal people with normal salary. The building owner has a fund for this extra cost and doesn't need a subsidy unless government requires all the existing houses and buildings to put solar panels on their roof. Besides this extra cost will be ROI later on so definitely this is not a big deal for building owners, especially factories that contribute too much carbon in the air that results in global warming.

Maybe factories should be focus next to implement this law.

it's just my opinion ... it will be better when the government gives a commission for homes that want to apply solar panels to their buildings.. and it will be even better if factories can launch solar panels that are cheaper but with better quality

[Kakmakr]

My friend in South Africa told me once, their local municipality wants to implement a levy on the people using solar panels. Those people are going off the grid, because the electricity that are provided to them by the municipality are being priced at a premium and they cannot afford it anymore. (The electricity is also generated by coal-fired power stations)

The municipality wants to discourage people going off the grid, because it cuts an income source for them...when people do not use their electricity anymore. They plan to charge a "levy" on the electricity that are generated by solar to these households to cover their losses. 

So, it is absolutely crazy how different some governments and local municipalities are addressing "energy" supply and also how they rely heavily on "dirty" energy and still misuse their monopoly to drain money from their citizens.  

[qwertyup23]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

Though this may be the case, still, the best course of action is to continue purchasing solar panels for alternative source of energy for consumption. If these countries have other sustainable methods, such as wind powers, etc., then they may opt to. But for the meantime, solar panels still provide the best course of alternative energy though it may be expensive initially.

This kind of alternative fuel should be installed into countries that are geographically placed into locations in which sunlight is abundant. I do hope that the government of other countries would follow this kind of implementation to take advantage of something that is free and natural.

[justdimin]

We really need something far more serious than just this price spike or the threat of Russia cutting the gas to finally start building back nuclear power plants, it's the only obvious choice that produces energy 24/7 and that can store the fuel for decades, but now, because one earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Germany who hasn't experienced an earthquake over 7 on Richter scale in its history and only 2 over 6 in 700 years decided they are too risky, and this while France has one of its powerplants right on the border.

Nuclear power plants are not the way to go because how scary they could be. Yes it is definitely a "clean" energy when working properly, and it is a very efficient one as well because you could literally give energy to whole big capitals of the world with just one of them and even whole nations if the nation is a small one.

However, if something goes wrong then you will be at the end of it and you should be worried about it all over again and now instead of pollution this would be regarding radiation which is much worse because it makes you cancer. Solar is so simple, just do that, because with enough land, you could literally cover all the need very easily, it is so "out there" and simple.

[palle11]

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

[FanEagle]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

Though this may be the case, still, the best course of action is to continue purchasing solar panels for alternative source of energy for consumption. If these countries have other sustainable methods, such as wind powers, etc., then they may opt to. But for the meantime, solar panels still provide the best course of alternative energy though it may be expensive initially.

This kind of alternative fuel should be installed into countries that are geographically placed into locations in which sunlight is abundant. I do hope that the government of other countries would follow this kind of implementation to take advantage of something that is free and natural.

We are forgetting that maybe not everyone has enough money to buy solar panels, but the topic here is that "new houses" needs to have this. So, it is not asked to be bought by everyone neither, it just says that every new house needs to have solar panels on the roof probably (where else could you put it? I do not know) and only the constructors of those houses need to pay for it and get it, and only the buyers would have to pay extra for it, that’s it.

This is why I believe that it shouldn't be that much of a shock for people to put this in motion, because it’s not forcing everyone to get it. Solar is great, and new houses is a limited small part of it.

[Lucius]

As we already know, such a law will not make much sense in countries that do not have many hours of suns hours a year, but in some other countries it may be useful, although people should be encouraged to do so because they want to, not because it is mandatory. One thing that EU bureaucrats do not take into account is that these panels will be exposed to damage from the increasing summer storms, and one such a few days ago did enormous damage in my country, among other things destroying a good part of solar panels with hail. Imagine having to buy new panels every year because you have to have them on your house and the storm keeps destroying them over and over again.

There is a question: Why did Europe take so long to turn to clean solar energy instead of relying on Russian fossil gas that pollutes the environment, but I think the reason is economic in the first place

I will not say anything more than to look at who are the people who were (or still are) in the supervisory boards of the largest Russian energy companies, and these are people from the EU (especially Germany). Their interest was not to reduce the EU's dependence on Russian oil and gas, but to increase it even more.

All these stories about sanctions and energy independence are mere fantasies and are used for daily political purposes, and in a few years everything will be the same as before - cheap oil and gas will flow into the EU as if nothing had happened. If in 20 years the Taliban have gone from being terrorists to being good guys, does anyone think that Russia will become some kind of country like North Korea?

[sovie]

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

I am not sure about it. But the country I live in - we face almost 8 hours of power outage, there is a server energy crisis. This brings in so much physical and mental torture that work life balance is also affected. Saving energy should be top priority of the world.
We suffer so much!

[SirLancelot]

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

It only sounds simple but there are downsides of using solar as energy as the panels can be expensive and the energy that the sun can provide might not be as strong as the traditional energy that most people are using now. This solar energy is not new but if there are new here maybe this was the first time to be implemented on this place or idk maybe they already tried using solar before but they are now making it mandatory.

Not sure if this has a relation to Ukraine and Russia war but one thing is for sure and that is they are doing this to help the environment as we all know that our environment has now been greatly damaged.

[Captain Corporate]

Not enough is not a good response to it, neither the expensive bit. Because we are not talking about something that should gather the all energy needs ever, we are talking about a lot more clean energy and thats a good enough reason. Why should it cover %100 of it? Even if it covers %10 of it, why not go for something that will make the world more green, even if %10 more thats still a good thing. On the other hand, the expensive part is that we are talking about new homes being built, and this is being mandatory there, well building a new home is not cheap at all, it costs a lot, adding solar panels to that is not even the most expensive part, why build a house and do something that costs so much, and yet not pay a bit more, like %10 more or even less, just to make the world a better place?

[Wakate]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

Having a solar panel is not as cheap as we could think, this this is very expensive and the government needs to come to the aid of the masses that may not be able to afford such. Using a solar energy in the house has it own advantages and disadvantages which can never be compared to the normal mass electric consumption that we do pay for.

Energy from batteries has it own effect like it will not be able to carry large current capacity appliances that requires huge electric current to power. Operating on solar energy doing the winner will have great effect on different households because there will be limited energy from the sun to charge the batteries.

[Spontaneous]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

   Yes if government provide subsidy for solar panels, it's a good idea to reduce carbon .Even it's a big cost but it's still worth it for today's and the future.

[sovie]

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

   Yes if government provide subsidy for solar panels, it's a good idea to reduce carbon .Even it's a big cost but it's still worth it for today's and the future.

the countries which receives good sunshine and they can afford the solar panels - so why not use natural light rather than electric power.
My country faces so much power outage trouble - we so want to shift to solar panels but we cannot afford.