Amadeus Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Germany’s First “Solar-Powered City” Marburg in Hessen has become the first city in Germany to require all new buildings to install a solar energy heating system. House owners in Marburg, with a total population of 78,000, must install a solar energy facility when they build new houses or renovate existing ones. The cost of installation begins at 5,000 euros at the minimum and the facility must be replaced once every 10 to 15 years. Anyone who fails to fulfill the city’s new requirement has to pay a penalty of 15,000 euros. House builders have the obligation to report their installation to relevant authorities after it is complete. Germany leading the way - as we usually do Watcha reckon - solar panels on all new and refurbed building on the island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 People should be given incentives to do things like this, not penalties if they dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 Usually, I like that route more, yes - but if this Global Warming and oil crisis thing is demanding urgent action - which appears to be the majority opinion in the press by now - then maybe incentives aren't enough anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Sure, but until they try incentives, they can't know if they'd work or not. A diminishing tax free allowance based on the cost of the work over a five year period would be enough for a lot of people to consider it, myself included. As it stands, my money for home improvements is better spent on other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Did anyone read manx tales? Finlow wrote in the last edition about how the manx government were doing pretty much fek all compared to other governments for climate change. The CM apparently disagreed, and met him to respond in the current issue....which resulted in highlighting just how little is being done. All sorts of bullshit, virtually zero action. Very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 For me the biggest problem is that I have no idea if it is better to invest in wind power, solar cells, nuclear power, biofuels or whatever. For a government to insist that you have to invest in any particular form of alternative energy is concerning - they may have picked the wrong horse and so are reducing the use of the best option and putting money into something which will help the environment less than it could have done. A worrying current example seems to be biofuels which seem to have less environmental benefits than were initially thought (and may actually be damaging), but are being hugely invested in because of government incentives. I'm more in favour of incentives and ensuring they are broadly applied - ie if you invest in any of the above you can get relief. I suppose it can be reversed and you can say unless you invest in any of the above you will be fined - but the main issue for me is that people have a broad range of options so there is a competition of ideas on how to solve this problem. Hence I slightly sympathize with 'King Tony Brown - we are a tiny Island, the idea that going for one form of alternative energy is going to make any difference is untrue, the chance of him getting the decision wrong is high and hence it is likely that this will be just a sap for tree huggers to make them feel good, but with no real benefit. I would be very cautious about jumping on any particular band wagon, and think some city in Germany is pretty silly to do so. That said, if another city was to choose wind power, another one making everyone grow some fuel for the local biofuel plant etc, maybe all in all the result would be the same, but it would be a very inefficient and bureaucratic way of doing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Aye, who'd be soft enough to lump all their power generation into one basket, like natural gas......doh! We could easily diversify into a number of smaller renewable projects without having to invest heavily into a single one. Besides, many of these technologies are mature enough now to not be a gamble. Wind and hydro particularly. I agree with you, if they're going to mandate, they should force 'renewables' rather than any specific tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Aye, who'd be soft enough to lump all their power generation into one basket, like natural gas......doh! We could easily diversify into a number of smaller renewable projects without having to invest heavily into a single one. Besides, many of these technologies are mature enough now to not be a gamble. Wind and hydro particularly. I agree with you, if they're going to mandate, they should force 'renewables' rather than any specific tech. Aye, not even the manx gov could be that stupid, at least they have oil generation as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Prior to the infrastructure the IOM only had heavy oil generation and limited hydro, it now has gas, light oil, some hydro, imported energy from the UK - which will come from all sources including renewable. The main reason the wind farm has been stalled has been ecological impact - with preserving bird nesting been seen as vital - (and no money ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I'd like the idea of having an energy supplier which pays for the installation and just bills for the savings or energy generated by the system - and there should be differentials in cost of renewables vs. from other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I can't understand the logic of Braddan Commissioners approach, spending parish funds on solar heating for their houses, which only benefits the tenant by keepint their fuel bills down, does nothing for the parish or anyone else. I think if the Government want to encourcge alternative energy they should review the planning aspects of what is allowed and what is not, having read of planning refusals for wind power etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Important to remember that this Germany town's measure has nothing to do with electricity generation. The Manx Government does offer grants for the installation of certain alternative energy sources, up to £500. To qualify for this you must already have a well-insulated house and energy efficient bulbs, which is the right direction for Government policy to be pointed in: Encourage people to use less before helping them get it alternatively. People like Costain live in the Greenpeace fantasy land of an 'energy-internet,' a concept that has largely been discredited. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but apart from maybe needing to look at anaerobic digestors and wood CHP, the Government has a good energy policy. Wind turbines still need to be backed up, meaning we would need some form of energy storage to make them a viable energy source, which adds greatly to the costs. They are only cost-viable in the UK due to Government subsidies as it is. I know Germany has lots of renewables, but that's because it has France's nuclear as back-up. Tempus: I take your point, but how many people living in Commissioners houses will also be in receipt of a fuel allowance? In my opinion, the less people have to spend on fuel the better, as it can be something of a poverty anchor. Also it is not a good idea to slacken the planning rules just so more wind turbines can be installed. Firstly, domestic turbines are rubbish at generating electricity. Second, there are numerous very good reasons for them to be rejected: Many if not most houses are not structured in such a way as to safely withstand the forces involved; it is not simply a case of bolting one on, also to be any where near effective they need to be large and some distance above the height of the house, due to the effects of turbulence caused by other buildings. Thirdly, many people find them displeasing to the eye, and those things must be taken into account in planning. Fourthly, if a building is listed there are additional complications. My point there is, the planning system works, it just may not give people their status-symbol wind turbine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 but they's probably be refused panels on the roof as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Did anyone read manx tales? Finlow wrote in the last edition about how the manx government were doing pretty much fek all compared to other governments for climate change. The CM apparently disagreed, and met him to respond in the current issue....which resulted in highlighting just how little is being done. All sorts of bullshit, virtually zero action. Very sad. Costain was on MR's 'Perspective' programme last week. Links to the interviews with Tony Brown and John Shimmin can be found on HERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Costain was on MR's 'Perspective' programme last week. Links to the interviews with Tony Brown and John Shimmin can be found on HERE. Yeah, that's it. Utter tosh, slopey shoulders crap. It's not the governments responsibility, it's the communities responsibility. Except it isn't, the community can't build a power station. It's clear it's an issue he knows fek all about, that it doesn't feature in his priorities at all, and he's just waffling though most of it. The bit about the strategic plan is genious. 'I think the less we write, the more we do'. What a load of crap. I'll give him the grant stuff though, that's over and above what the uk government does, so that's one positive thing. All in glorious ear bleeding 20kb/s, what the hell is up with manx radio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.