

Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind - boh
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html?_r=0

======
vaadu
Utilities will fight back. To help this transition in the US municipalities
should not be allowed to require residences to be connected to utilities.

[http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/18/texas-
state-t...](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/18/texas-state-tried-
to-shut-down-a-sustainable-community/)

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-10/off-the-
grid...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-10/off-the-grid-in-
florida-robin-speronis-fights-municipal-code)

~~~
nl
Why?

Its extremely rare and costly to produce enough power yourself to go off-grid.
Requiring utility connections seem sensible policy (in urban areas anyway).

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Its extremely rare and costly to produce enough power yourself to go off-
grid._

If so, then the law seems unnecessary. If not, the law seems harmful.

Why should the individuals who do not need utilities be obligated to purchase
them?

------
mmphosis
I think there is a huge opportunity for VCs and everyone else here. Invest
directly in solar and wind installations. Small enterprises (startups) do home
installations and the customer pays the company with interest like a micro-
utility. I've heard that this is very much how many installers operate in the
United States. The show stopper for many people is the initial investment in
solar and wind, so if VCs have the money to invest this is a win for everyone
involved. It's maybe not the same as investing in shares of a tech. company,
but I think that it is a much safer investment.

[http://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/#energy](http://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/#energy)

~~~
icebraining
There was a startup doing that in India, IIRC. They installed the solar
panels, then you paid for the energy until the panel was paid off, which then
became your property.

EDIT: found it: [http://simpanetworks.com/our-
solution/](http://simpanetworks.com/our-solution/)

------
LiamMcCalloway
The article is somewhat misleading in portraying Germany as a leader. In fact,
these policies find their origin in the 2003 EU Energy Directive. What they
describe is true in all the E.U. countries which met their respective
renewable energy objectives as mandated by the E.U.

~~~
DanBC
How well do the EU countries meet their objectives? Are any doing better than
others? German demand for solar was so strong it drove up the price of silica.

~~~
Brakenshire
Germany is the clear leader for non-hydroelectric renewable generation (which
is, after all, the difficult form, and the form that can be rolled out
worldwide).

Curiously enough, though, it is outperformed by the UK and particularly
France, in actual CO2 emissions:

[https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...](https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:FRA:GBR&ifdim=region&ind=false)

That is, because of its reliance on coal. The UK, in comparison, gets much of
its energy from gas, and France nuclear.

------
nl
The Australian state I live in (SA) took _72%_ of its power generation from
wind power for one (windy) day last week.

------
WildUtah
The chart in the article puts fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) on one side and
renewables (solar, wind) and low emission sources (hydro) on the other. Then
it puts nuclear with the fossil fuels. Nuclear belongs on the renewable and no
emission side; its disadvantage isn't global warming or limited fuel but
possible industrial accidents. the chart would be much more informative if the
divide reflected actual future energy and pollution challenges the nations are
facing.

Wow. Has Japan really abandoned its nuclear power that thoroughly? If it sets
itself up in a resource race with China, it's going to be sorry someday.

~~~
manicdee
How do you renew the supply of nuclear fuel?

~~~
WildUtah
There isn't any shortage now; plenty of known cheap reserves exist. New fuels
in upcoming fission reactors like thorium are also very abundant.

Also, breeder reactions can extend the current supply of nuclear fuel
effectively indefinitely and reduce the amount of waste to dispose of.

Meanwhile by comparison natural gas supplies are set to peak within two
decades and oil production peaked in 2005. Coal won't peak for a while but the
most desirable anthracite is already exhausted outside China and Vietnam.
Filthy lignite production is twice as high and bitumen is ten times as high.

------
naturalethic
Did the NYT buy this website when I wasn't looking?

