Now Hear This!

Offering news and business analysis for the design engineer, Managing News Editor Suzanne Deffree filters the electronics industry's developments and trends to explain how what's happening in the board room today can impact the tech innovation of tomorrow.

Advertisement

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

By Category

News Center Articles

Blog

Now Hear This!

« Siemens exiting Fujitsu PC par... | Main | This week in gEEk: Who’s... »

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Germany town requires solar panels on homes

Aug 7 2008 4:35PM | Permalink |Comments (14) |

The tiled roofs that make up Marburg, Germany’s skyline will soon be paint less of a fairytale image and more an image that is high-tech.

The town council there decided in late June to require solar-heating panels on all new home construction, as well as on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs, according to a New York Times article published this week.

Marburg is located about halfway between Frankfurt and Kasel in the German state of Hesse and has a population of approximately 79,000. If you’re scratching your head right now, wondering where you’ve heard “Marburg” before, think “the Marburg speech,” the address given by German vice chancellor Franz von Papen at the University of Marburg in June 1934 and said to be the era’s last speech made publicly by anyone at Papen’s level in Germany against Nazism.

Already a pretty green town, Marburg sports three wind turbines and several busses that run on natural gas or bio diesel. And as a nation Germany has seen its government commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020.

Specifically, the law requires at least 1-sq meter of solar energy collector per 20-sq meters of roof surface. That, according to the council, should give a minimum of 4-sq meters of solar-thermal collector or 1 kilowatt of photovoltaic panels. The city estimates a cost of 4,000 Euro ($6,134) per single-family house, to be carried by the home owner.

The NYT article profiles a few citizens of the town who are hot under the collar about the new law, which goes into effect on October 1. Those citizens who don’t company face a 1000 Euro ($1,532) fine.

Germany has been a leader in solar energy usage for some time now, in large part thanks to the federal subsidies it offers. Marburg, itself, offers a 250 Euro ($383) subsidiary to home owners to promote solar panel instillations. But until this time no town in Germany, nor anywhere else, has ordered its citizens to tap the power source.

While this decision will see many companies in our photovoltaic industry cheering on the new business, has the town’s government gone too far by requiring its citizens to go green? Voice your opinions below.

--Suzanne Deffree, Managing Editor, News

Reader Comments

at 8/8/2008 3:16:00 PM, Jonathan Williams said:
Slipperly slope of big government control over virtually every aspect of its citizens' lives. If it makes 'cents' then the people will do it without the Big Brother mandates.

at 8/9/2008 4:03:01 AM, ls said:
Disagree with J.W. We need to push harder for changing from oil / coal to renewables. This should be a combination of taxes on these types of uses and laws forcing implementaiton of renewables. This will drive lower costs for all

at 8/9/2008 4:17:56 AM, Scunnerous said:
J.W is absolutely correct. What the hell is the use of 1kW for a few hours per day, when most people are not home, and only when the roof is not covered in snow... and who is going to clean and maintain the things? There are better things that one could do with $6000. What a waste but that's what happens when govt. meddles in things which are beyond its understanding or mandate.

at 8/9/2008 11:54:02 AM, Wasteful dirty way of thinling said:
There is such ignorance about solar energy.. the kw will go to the power grid, and the guy that generates that power is paid for it, duh.. the more you generate the more you get paid.

And about the solar thermal, the power that is gathered from the sun, is saved from burning fossil fuels, so you grandkids can breath in this planet, 30 years from now, duh... again.

Or you think that mankind can keep burning crap to keep-up with a never ending and unlimited increase in energy consumption?

It''s like thinking that burning all those millions and millions of oil barrels a day is not going to have ANY consecuences AT ALL, no way duh... again.

Most North-americans think and act in the most wasteful ways, think SUV''s, blowing up their egos and burning fuel to move around in several thousand pounds of iron

at 8/10/2008 2:38:32 AM, DC8SE said:
I'm located in ULM. AND we have solar on the roof. 8sqm. and a boiler in the cellar! in the month of summer we did not need oil!!!! And we have every day hot water 500liter with a maxim temp of 80deg Celsius. In the winter on a sunny day the water get a temp. of about 54deg. So, we spend a lot of oil.
snow. no problem. the snow is melting.
clean up: no problem.

my conclusion after 2Years. DO IT

at 8/11/2008 2:02:03 AM, DK8PP said:
I live in Düsseldorf and we decided to install solar panels for 12-16kW (peak) within this year. We hope to harvest 11-14MWh annually. That is more than twice the electricity that we consume.
This makes commercial sense, because it is heavily subsidized here in Germany by tax deduction and by high prizes for the electricity. We can deduct 40% of the investment in the year of the installation and we get paid 0.46€/kWh guaranteed for the next 20 years. The installation will have paid itself after about 14 years. Actually we would be stupid not to do it!
On the other hand, a free country should never force its people to do such things. It has a taste of dictatorship.

at 8/11/2008 2:54:38 AM, Frog7 said:
What the hell is DC8SE doing with so much hot water every day? We need just 10% of that. It costs about one $ every day, and seeing our roof going to the east and to the west we would have to install twice as nuch panels to get sunlight the whole day. So the panels would have to last much more than those 20 years they are said to do. And do you think the production of the panels and all the other material needed is for free? These things are not just growing on a tree! Their production costs a lot of waste and pollution and CO2!The politicians forget: When there is no sunlight because of the direction of the roof, there will be no saving of CO2, only a greater production of that! More than
20% are taxes when buying something, so that is what we should pay, green is just a pretty plea for getting more money!Besides, in our village everything looking like renewable energy is strictly forbidden, one may come creeping and beg for a solution to be granted. Thats not the right way. And forcing people to do something and not saying how it could be done is an evil, but more and more common way of politics. It makes us hate the idea which we should love so much: Green energy!

at 8/11/2008 5:08:00 AM, Pete said:
I suppose the Germans manufacture a reliable solar cell, otherwise this legislation and extensive applications of solar cells would be a blunder.

I don't think this idea would fly in the U.S.A. unless we installed solar cells that were guarenteed for 50 years.
If we have to repair or replace solar cells every year or every 5 years, then it is too expensive for an energy source which only partially replaces the energy produced by oil and coal.

at 8/11/2008 5:28:27 AM, FEH said:
The main target now is to make the solar panels cheaper.
If the solar panels get cheaper, the privite will invest.
Therfore we have to boost the manufactured quantity.
For that reason, we need the help of public money to start to install panels, create jobs, increase the environnement quality, cooperate to the energy solution, . . . . . until the business is running.

at 8/11/2008 5:59:23 AM, Cuba said:
Sounds like a bunch of worthless governemnt workers trying to justify their overpaid existance. More and more villages in the United States are butting in where they have no business and turning the place into a true hellhole to live in.

at 8/11/2008 7:20:00 AM, Ihor said:
The towns councillors, are definetly communists. Why should they enoforce a crooked law on the citizens of Marburg, Germany. They''ve turned green revolution into a communist green revoloution.
Poor folk who try to make a living and are snubbed again by bureaucrats.

at 8/12/2008 12:05:10 PM, aaa said:
This article does not talk about solar-cells that produces electricity, rather about much cheaper and simpler solar-heating panels. In Israel (where obvioulsy the sun shines much more frequently), there is a similar law for over 15 years now, and it saves tons of money. Unfortunately, in the USA, many neighbourhood associations will not allow installing solar-heating panels because it is not aesthetic enough...

at 8/12/2008 2:10:05 PM, Tony said:
When I worked for a company that required special glasses and footwear, they provided a subsidy that encompassed the minimum requirements under law. If I wished something a bit fancier or different, I had to make up the difference.
I see this as no different if they offer the same subsidy. If they don't, then the government should be replaced and the requirement repealed.

at 8/20/2008 5:22:38 AM, Steve said:
While most of you make valid points about the technical and money aspects of the issue I have to agree whan goverment mandates a burden on the people by issuing regulations or laws that have not been voted on by the people the goverment represents. This if the majority of the population did not support this law than it is wrong, if so then the majority has spoken and if you don't like it you can vote with your feet and move. One major point I have to agree with is goverment should stay out of peoples lives and livelyhood as much as possable. When the economics of the issue makes sence then people will do it. Should the goverment take money from me(taxes)to give to someone else as an incentive or subsidy to do somthing that I may or may not agree with? Certianly not!

Now Hear This!

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives