Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
January 15, 2014
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/14/national/hosokawa-to-run-gets-nuke-foe-koizumis-nod/
Japan ExPM Hosokawa to run, gets nuke foe Koizumi’s nod
Hosokawa to run, gets nuke foe Koizumi’s nod
Tokyo governor candidate, 76, may try to keep Tepco reactors idle
KYODO, AFP-JIJI JAN 14, 2014
“The nuclear issue is something that is worth working on as a governor,” Hosokawa said after meeting with Koizumi at a Tokyo hotel. “I will give my all.”
...“I have made a decision to run in the race,” Hosokawa said. “Mr. Koizumi said he would support me. I feel very encouraged.”
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government is a major shareholder in Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the Fukushima No. 1 plant as well as several other nuclear power stations.
An anti-nuclear governor could use this position to curb the utility’s drive to restart its shuttered reactors....
Tokyo governor candidate, 76, may try to keep Tepco reactors idle
KYODO, AFP-JIJI JAN 14, 2014
“The nuclear issue is something that is worth working on as a governor,” Hosokawa said after meeting with Koizumi at a Tokyo hotel. “I will give my all.”
...“I have made a decision to run in the race,” Hosokawa said. “Mr. Koizumi said he would support me. I feel very encouraged.”
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government is a major shareholder in Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the Fukushima No. 1 plant as well as several other nuclear power stations.
An anti-nuclear governor could use this position to curb the utility’s drive to restart its shuttered reactors....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/14/national/hosokawa-to-run-gets-nuke-foe-koizumis-nod/
January 14, 2014
After spending approximately $100,000 in professional/attorney fees over the past two years fighting us and the 43 other members of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association (MOSEIA) over the denial of a $69 building permit, the mayor of the wealthy city of Clarkson Valley, MO was quoted as saying “We are not against solar, but… If anyone feels like they want solar panels, we want them to come forward and put them in. We are not against solar panels and never had been.”
After all we’ve been through, that statement is hard for us to believe. When my husband applied for a permit back on November 1, 2011, there were no laws on the books regulating solar. Permits should have been issued in a timely fashion per the city’s own ordinance. Our building plans had already been approved by our HOA and our local utility company. With our plans in hand, the city hastily drafted a proposed ordinance banning solar panels on the front of homes, ground mounts, and awning systems. Had the ordinance passed, we couldn’t have complied with the terms of the solar rebate program. The next month, ½ of the city council members mysteriously, for the first time ever, called in sick or were unavailable. The council meeting was cancelled but a working session was held instead with ½ of the aldermen attending. Perhaps it was the backlash caused by the local TV news crew, several newspapers, and the local radio station that had picked up the story that caused the aldermen to suddenly become indisposed. The crew of greenies who showed up had plenty to say about what they called the most restrictive solar ordinance in the state. The following month, the city passed its ordinance, which turned out to be even more restrictive than the one introduced the evening after we first applied for a permit.
The terms of the ordinance required property owners to first pay $350 for a special use permit application. The special use permit required planning and zoning approval as well as Board of Aldermen approval and at least some buy-in with approximately 20 of our nearby neighbor’s homes that were within 500 feet of our property line. The fire codes greatly limited panel placement on roofs, far in excess of the already restrictive 2012 International Fire Codes. The more complex the roof line, the less rooftop panels were allowed. This played with the cost-benefit of solar energy systems. It also made systems less visually attractive and gave NIMBY neighbors just cause for complaints.
Aesthetic limitations were enacted to force panels to be parallel to the plane of the roof. Aldermen were allowed to modify plans as they saw fit for aesthetic purposes, even forcing systems to be placed in shaded areas. Two sets of safety labeling in large lettering were required on disconnects, each saying basically the same thing. Permits were only allowed to be issued to a very limited number of people who were either NABCEP certified or professional engineers. This was in conflict with the licensing policies of the city’s building code sub-contractor. In order to be issued a permit, an installer must pass both the city’s ordinance was well as the county’s ordinance. Back when we applied, only 6 such individuals in the entire state were able to meet both the city and county’s licensing requirements. Sign-off was required by a licensed professional. Annual recurring costs were added to the ordinance by 3rd party testing agencies. The worst thing was the revocation of permits when the homeowner no longer owned the property. Who in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade their home if when they moved everything had to be restored back to its original condition or a lot of fancy footwork had to be done to avoid paying steep fines for having a solar energy without a permit?
With the city’s transient resident base, homeowners selling their home in less than 10 years would breach the terms of their solar rebate contract. If a homeowner couldn’t comply with all portions of the ordinance, they could always seek a variance. The Board of Zoning Adjustment members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Aldermen. The BZA meeting would be another $500 fee, another public hearing with all of the neighbors and another delay which nipped into the mandatory deadline for system completions in order to get a rebate. On top of all of these requirements, the homeowners association wanted to enact its own rules, which would add additional restrictions and delays.
After we achieved P&Z approval, neighbors — who previously voiced no concerns to us when we told them of our plans — arrived in even greater numbers to the Board of Aldermen meeting to complain about our proposed “solar farm.” There were concerns that panels would fly off the roof like frisbees in the first strong wind, that critters might nest under the panels and possibly cause residents to get rabies, that glare from panels might blind drivers who would run off the road and crash into people’s houses, that our system was too large and should be considered a business because energy might accidentally escape onto the grid (for which we would be compensated), and of course the standard complaint that solar was ugly and would ruin property values in the neighborhood. There were concerns that we might buy Chinese solar panels. Some claimed that anything made in China was junk and didn’t belong in a first-class neighborhood. One neighbor feared that with all of the trees on our property that leaves might collect and cause the panels to spontaneously combust, burning down the entire neighborhood. An alderman expressed concern about our house being too tall for us to be able to clean the panels regularly. To that, I asked him how often he got on top of his roof and cleaned it. Lastly, a respected realtor said he feared that prospective buyers wouldn’t even get out of the car to look at a nearby property for sale if they sighted something ugly nearby.
Funny, I’ve never seen a safety warning on PV panels claiming dangerous flying objects, wildfires, rabies, and automobile accidents as possible consequences of using solar panels.
Our request to install even a single solar panel anywhere on our 4.56 acres of densely forested land was denied by a vote of 6-0 without any explanation. We and the solar installers unsuccessfully tried everything imaginable to get our project approved. Our only recourse was to sue. So we did, and we won.
The city fought valiantly, claiming that we filed too late, in the wrong court, in the wrong county, under the wrong statutes, and joined with inappropriate parties (the solar installers and the public service commission). They claimed that local zoning ordinances allowed them to ignore the state’s solar rights act, which declared the right to use solar energy as a property right (property rights are protected by the constitution). The court disagreed and allowed us to install our system. But the city was unhappy and appealed the decision after the system had been up and running for months. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and were an abuse of discretion. They were ordered to issue us permits, within one business day. If they failed to do so, the court allowed us to build our system per our application, under their authority. Even though our system has been up and running now for 16 months, the city has still stubbornly refused to issue us permits. Shockingly, in the press, the city is touting a victory for cities in our solar panel lawsuit because their restrictive ordinance was not overturned. Cities across Missouri can continue to write restrictive solar ordinances as long as they don’t prevent a homeowner from using solar energy or effectively preventing it. Spoken like a true politician, our 83-year-old mayor, who has been running the town for decades, claims no one at city hall is against solar panels.
The irony in this story is our system, which sits more than a football field away from the curb, and is barely visible to anyone most of the year. Above is a photo of what the controversial system looks like. (Omitted photo because it's bandwidth heavy - k)
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
See also:
More at: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/
ALEC documents
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf
Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf
Crazy solar story
Used under Creative Commons license
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
Crazy Solar Story
One of our readers recently contacted me about a crazy fight her and her husband (+ other solar advocates in the state) were having with policymakers in her city. She contacted me right at the end of this story, before the finale you’ll read below. Following all of it, I asked her to write up a story for CleanTechnica, hoping that it could perhaps help others in a similar situation now or down the line. Or, at the least, it’s an entertaining “WTF” story. Read on for this excellent piece from Frances Babb.
After spending approximately $100,000 in professional/attorney fees over the past two years fighting us and the 43 other members of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association (MOSEIA) over the denial of a $69 building permit, the mayor of the wealthy city of Clarkson Valley, MO was quoted as saying “We are not against solar, but… If anyone feels like they want solar panels, we want them to come forward and put them in. We are not against solar panels and never had been.”
After all we’ve been through, that statement is hard for us to believe. When my husband applied for a permit back on November 1, 2011, there were no laws on the books regulating solar. Permits should have been issued in a timely fashion per the city’s own ordinance. Our building plans had already been approved by our HOA and our local utility company. With our plans in hand, the city hastily drafted a proposed ordinance banning solar panels on the front of homes, ground mounts, and awning systems. Had the ordinance passed, we couldn’t have complied with the terms of the solar rebate program. The next month, ½ of the city council members mysteriously, for the first time ever, called in sick or were unavailable. The council meeting was cancelled but a working session was held instead with ½ of the aldermen attending. Perhaps it was the backlash caused by the local TV news crew, several newspapers, and the local radio station that had picked up the story that caused the aldermen to suddenly become indisposed. The crew of greenies who showed up had plenty to say about what they called the most restrictive solar ordinance in the state. The following month, the city passed its ordinance, which turned out to be even more restrictive than the one introduced the evening after we first applied for a permit.
The terms of the ordinance required property owners to first pay $350 for a special use permit application. The special use permit required planning and zoning approval as well as Board of Aldermen approval and at least some buy-in with approximately 20 of our nearby neighbor’s homes that were within 500 feet of our property line. The fire codes greatly limited panel placement on roofs, far in excess of the already restrictive 2012 International Fire Codes. The more complex the roof line, the less rooftop panels were allowed. This played with the cost-benefit of solar energy systems. It also made systems less visually attractive and gave NIMBY neighbors just cause for complaints.
Aesthetic limitations were enacted to force panels to be parallel to the plane of the roof. Aldermen were allowed to modify plans as they saw fit for aesthetic purposes, even forcing systems to be placed in shaded areas. Two sets of safety labeling in large lettering were required on disconnects, each saying basically the same thing. Permits were only allowed to be issued to a very limited number of people who were either NABCEP certified or professional engineers. This was in conflict with the licensing policies of the city’s building code sub-contractor. In order to be issued a permit, an installer must pass both the city’s ordinance was well as the county’s ordinance. Back when we applied, only 6 such individuals in the entire state were able to meet both the city and county’s licensing requirements. Sign-off was required by a licensed professional. Annual recurring costs were added to the ordinance by 3rd party testing agencies. The worst thing was the revocation of permits when the homeowner no longer owned the property. Who in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade their home if when they moved everything had to be restored back to its original condition or a lot of fancy footwork had to be done to avoid paying steep fines for having a solar energy without a permit?
With the city’s transient resident base, homeowners selling their home in less than 10 years would breach the terms of their solar rebate contract. If a homeowner couldn’t comply with all portions of the ordinance, they could always seek a variance. The Board of Zoning Adjustment members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Aldermen. The BZA meeting would be another $500 fee, another public hearing with all of the neighbors and another delay which nipped into the mandatory deadline for system completions in order to get a rebate. On top of all of these requirements, the homeowners association wanted to enact its own rules, which would add additional restrictions and delays.
After we achieved P&Z approval, neighbors — who previously voiced no concerns to us when we told them of our plans — arrived in even greater numbers to the Board of Aldermen meeting to complain about our proposed “solar farm.” There were concerns that panels would fly off the roof like frisbees in the first strong wind, that critters might nest under the panels and possibly cause residents to get rabies, that glare from panels might blind drivers who would run off the road and crash into people’s houses, that our system was too large and should be considered a business because energy might accidentally escape onto the grid (for which we would be compensated), and of course the standard complaint that solar was ugly and would ruin property values in the neighborhood. There were concerns that we might buy Chinese solar panels. Some claimed that anything made in China was junk and didn’t belong in a first-class neighborhood. One neighbor feared that with all of the trees on our property that leaves might collect and cause the panels to spontaneously combust, burning down the entire neighborhood. An alderman expressed concern about our house being too tall for us to be able to clean the panels regularly. To that, I asked him how often he got on top of his roof and cleaned it. Lastly, a respected realtor said he feared that prospective buyers wouldn’t even get out of the car to look at a nearby property for sale if they sighted something ugly nearby.
Funny, I’ve never seen a safety warning on PV panels claiming dangerous flying objects, wildfires, rabies, and automobile accidents as possible consequences of using solar panels.
Our request to install even a single solar panel anywhere on our 4.56 acres of densely forested land was denied by a vote of 6-0 without any explanation. We and the solar installers unsuccessfully tried everything imaginable to get our project approved. Our only recourse was to sue. So we did, and we won.
The city fought valiantly, claiming that we filed too late, in the wrong court, in the wrong county, under the wrong statutes, and joined with inappropriate parties (the solar installers and the public service commission). They claimed that local zoning ordinances allowed them to ignore the state’s solar rights act, which declared the right to use solar energy as a property right (property rights are protected by the constitution). The court disagreed and allowed us to install our system. But the city was unhappy and appealed the decision after the system had been up and running for months. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and were an abuse of discretion. They were ordered to issue us permits, within one business day. If they failed to do so, the court allowed us to build our system per our application, under their authority. Even though our system has been up and running now for 16 months, the city has still stubbornly refused to issue us permits. Shockingly, in the press, the city is touting a victory for cities in our solar panel lawsuit because their restrictive ordinance was not overturned. Cities across Missouri can continue to write restrictive solar ordinances as long as they don’t prevent a homeowner from using solar energy or effectively preventing it. Spoken like a true politician, our 83-year-old mayor, who has been running the town for decades, claims no one at city hall is against solar panels.
The irony in this story is our system, which sits more than a football field away from the curb, and is barely visible to anyone most of the year. Above is a photo of what the controversial system looks like. (Omitted photo because it's bandwidth heavy - k)
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
See also:
How ALEC plans to reshape U.S. energy policy in 2014
By Ethan Howland
JANUARY 10, 2014
Who is ALEC?
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded conservative group that drafts model bills and policies for its legislative members to take back to their home states.
ALEC boasts nearly 2,000 state lawmakers as members, according to the group. Typically, ALEC lawmaker members introduce the group's model legislation and resolutions in their home legislatures. Identical ALEC bills sometimes pop up in different states around the country.
ALEC has turned its attention to electric utility issues in recent years. “The ever-increasing governmental control over energy supply, distribution, and use is threatening not only the nation’s prosperity but also individual liberty,” according to ALEC's 2014 Natural Resource Reserve, which lays out the group's model policies on energy, the environment and agriculture for this year....
By Ethan Howland
JANUARY 10, 2014
Who is ALEC?
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded conservative group that drafts model bills and policies for its legislative members to take back to their home states.
ALEC boasts nearly 2,000 state lawmakers as members, according to the group. Typically, ALEC lawmaker members introduce the group's model legislation and resolutions in their home legislatures. Identical ALEC bills sometimes pop up in different states around the country.
ALEC has turned its attention to electric utility issues in recent years. “The ever-increasing governmental control over energy supply, distribution, and use is threatening not only the nation’s prosperity but also individual liberty,” according to ALEC's 2014 Natural Resource Reserve, which lays out the group's model policies on energy, the environment and agriculture for this year....
More at: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/
ALEC documents
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf
Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf
January 14, 2014
After spending approximately $100,000 in professional/attorney fees over the past two years fighting us and the 43 other members of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association (MOSEIA) over the denial of a $69 building permit, the mayor of the wealthy city of Clarkson Valley, MO was quoted as saying “We are not against solar, but… If anyone feels like they want solar panels, we want them to come forward and put them in. We are not against solar panels and never had been.”
After all we’ve been through, that statement is hard for us to believe. When my husband applied for a permit back on November 1, 2011, there were no laws on the books regulating solar. Permits should have been issued in a timely fashion per the city’s own ordinance. Our building plans had already been approved by our HOA and our local utility company. With our plans in hand, the city hastily drafted a proposed ordinance banning solar panels on the front of homes, ground mounts, and awning systems. Had the ordinance passed, we couldn’t have complied with the terms of the solar rebate program. The next month, ½ of the city council members mysteriously, for the first time ever, called in sick or were unavailable. The council meeting was cancelled but a working session was held instead with ½ of the aldermen attending. Perhaps it was the backlash caused by the local TV news crew, several newspapers, and the local radio station that had picked up the story that caused the aldermen to suddenly become indisposed. The crew of greenies who showed up had plenty to say about what they called the most restrictive solar ordinance in the state. The following month, the city passed its ordinance, which turned out to be even more restrictive than the one introduced the evening after we first applied for a permit.
The terms of the ordinance required property owners to first pay $350 for a special use permit application. The special use permit required planning and zoning approval as well as Board of Aldermen approval and at least some buy-in with approximately 20 of our nearby neighbor’s homes that were within 500 feet of our property line. The fire codes greatly limited panel placement on roofs, far in excess of the already restrictive 2012 International Fire Codes. The more complex the roof line, the less rooftop panels were allowed. This played with the cost-benefit of solar energy systems. It also made systems less visually attractive and gave NIMBY neighbors just cause for complaints.
Aesthetic limitations were enacted to force panels to be parallel to the plane of the roof. Aldermen were allowed to modify plans as they saw fit for aesthetic purposes, even forcing systems to be placed in shaded areas. Two sets of safety labeling in large lettering were required on disconnects, each saying basically the same thing. Permits were only allowed to be issued to a very limited number of people who were either NABCEP certified or professional engineers. This was in conflict with the licensing policies of the city’s building code sub-contractor. In order to be issued a permit, an installer must pass both the city’s ordinance was well as the county’s ordinance. Back when we applied, only 6 such individuals in the entire state were able to meet both the city and county’s licensing requirements. Sign-off was required by a licensed professional. Annual recurring costs were added to the ordinance by 3rd party testing agencies. The worst thing was the revocation of permits when the homeowner no longer owned the property. Who in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade their home if when they moved everything had to be restored back to its original condition or a lot of fancy footwork had to be done to avoid paying steep fines for having a solar energy without a permit?
With the city’s transient resident base, homeowners selling their home in less than 10 years would breach the terms of their solar rebate contract. If a homeowner couldn’t comply with all portions of the ordinance, they could always seek a variance. The Board of Zoning Adjustment members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Aldermen. The BZA meeting would be another $500 fee, another public hearing with all of the neighbors and another delay which nipped into the mandatory deadline for system completions in order to get a rebate. On top of all of these requirements, the homeowners association wanted to enact its own rules, which would add additional restrictions and delays.
After we achieved P&Z approval, neighbors — who previously voiced no concerns to us when we told them of our plans — arrived in even greater numbers to the Board of Aldermen meeting to complain about our proposed “solar farm.” There were concerns that panels would fly off the roof like frisbees in the first strong wind, that critters might nest under the panels and possibly cause residents to get rabies, that glare from panels might blind drivers who would run off the road and crash into people’s houses, that our system was too large and should be considered a business because energy might accidentally escape onto the grid (for which we would be compensated), and of course the standard complaint that solar was ugly and would ruin property values in the neighborhood. There were concerns that we might buy Chinese solar panels. Some claimed that anything made in China was junk and didn’t belong in a first-class neighborhood. One neighbor feared that with all of the trees on our property that leaves might collect and cause the panels to spontaneously combust, burning down the entire neighborhood. An alderman expressed concern about our house being too tall for us to be able to clean the panels regularly. To that, I asked him how often he got on top of his roof and cleaned it. Lastly, a respected realtor said he feared that prospective buyers wouldn’t even get out of the car to look at a nearby property for sale if they sighted something ugly nearby.
Funny, I’ve never seen a safety warning on PV panels claiming dangerous flying objects, wildfires, rabies, and automobile accidents as possible consequences of using solar panels.
Our request to install even a single solar panel anywhere on our 4.56 acres of densely forested land was denied by a vote of 6-0 without any explanation. We and the solar installers unsuccessfully tried everything imaginable to get our project approved. Our only recourse was to sue. So we did, and we won.
?zoom=2&fit=570%2C1200
Our solar home
The city fought valiantly, claiming that we filed too late, in the wrong court, in the wrong county, under the wrong statutes, and joined with inappropriate parties (the solar installers and the public service commission). They claimed that local zoning ordinances allowed them to ignore the state’s solar rights act, which declared the right to use solar energy as a property right (property rights are protected by the constitution). The court disagreed and allowed us to install our system. But the city was unhappy and appealed the decision after the system had been up and running for months. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and were an abuse of discretion. They were ordered to issue us permits, within one business day. If they failed to do so, the court allowed us to build our system per our application, under their authority. Even though our system has been up and running now for 16 months, the city has still stubbornly refused to issue us permits. Shockingly, in the press, the city is touting a victory for cities in our solar panel lawsuit because their restrictive ordinance was not overturned. Cities across Missouri can continue to write restrictive solar ordinances as long as they don’t prevent a homeowner from using solar energy or effectively preventing it. Spoken like a true politician, our 83-year-old mayor, who has been running the town for decades, claims no one at city hall is against solar panels.
The irony in this story is our system, which sits more than a football field away from the curb, and is barely visible to anyone most of the year. Above is a photo of what the controversial system looks like.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
See also:
More at: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/
ALEC documents
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf
Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf
Crazy Solar Story
Used under Creative Commons license
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
Crazy Solar Story
One of our readers recently contacted me about a crazy fight her and her husband (+ other solar advocates in the state) were having with policymakers in her city. She contacted me right at the end of this story, before the finale you’ll read below. Following all of it, I asked her to write up a story for CleanTechnica, hoping that it could perhaps help others in a similar situation now or down the line. Or, at the least, it’s an entertaining “WTF” story. Read on for this excellent piece from Frances Babb.
After spending approximately $100,000 in professional/attorney fees over the past two years fighting us and the 43 other members of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association (MOSEIA) over the denial of a $69 building permit, the mayor of the wealthy city of Clarkson Valley, MO was quoted as saying “We are not against solar, but… If anyone feels like they want solar panels, we want them to come forward and put them in. We are not against solar panels and never had been.”
After all we’ve been through, that statement is hard for us to believe. When my husband applied for a permit back on November 1, 2011, there were no laws on the books regulating solar. Permits should have been issued in a timely fashion per the city’s own ordinance. Our building plans had already been approved by our HOA and our local utility company. With our plans in hand, the city hastily drafted a proposed ordinance banning solar panels on the front of homes, ground mounts, and awning systems. Had the ordinance passed, we couldn’t have complied with the terms of the solar rebate program. The next month, ½ of the city council members mysteriously, for the first time ever, called in sick or were unavailable. The council meeting was cancelled but a working session was held instead with ½ of the aldermen attending. Perhaps it was the backlash caused by the local TV news crew, several newspapers, and the local radio station that had picked up the story that caused the aldermen to suddenly become indisposed. The crew of greenies who showed up had plenty to say about what they called the most restrictive solar ordinance in the state. The following month, the city passed its ordinance, which turned out to be even more restrictive than the one introduced the evening after we first applied for a permit.
The terms of the ordinance required property owners to first pay $350 for a special use permit application. The special use permit required planning and zoning approval as well as Board of Aldermen approval and at least some buy-in with approximately 20 of our nearby neighbor’s homes that were within 500 feet of our property line. The fire codes greatly limited panel placement on roofs, far in excess of the already restrictive 2012 International Fire Codes. The more complex the roof line, the less rooftop panels were allowed. This played with the cost-benefit of solar energy systems. It also made systems less visually attractive and gave NIMBY neighbors just cause for complaints.
Aesthetic limitations were enacted to force panels to be parallel to the plane of the roof. Aldermen were allowed to modify plans as they saw fit for aesthetic purposes, even forcing systems to be placed in shaded areas. Two sets of safety labeling in large lettering were required on disconnects, each saying basically the same thing. Permits were only allowed to be issued to a very limited number of people who were either NABCEP certified or professional engineers. This was in conflict with the licensing policies of the city’s building code sub-contractor. In order to be issued a permit, an installer must pass both the city’s ordinance was well as the county’s ordinance. Back when we applied, only 6 such individuals in the entire state were able to meet both the city and county’s licensing requirements. Sign-off was required by a licensed professional. Annual recurring costs were added to the ordinance by 3rd party testing agencies. The worst thing was the revocation of permits when the homeowner no longer owned the property. Who in their right mind would spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade their home if when they moved everything had to be restored back to its original condition or a lot of fancy footwork had to be done to avoid paying steep fines for having a solar energy without a permit?
With the city’s transient resident base, homeowners selling their home in less than 10 years would breach the terms of their solar rebate contract. If a homeowner couldn’t comply with all portions of the ordinance, they could always seek a variance. The Board of Zoning Adjustment members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Aldermen. The BZA meeting would be another $500 fee, another public hearing with all of the neighbors and another delay which nipped into the mandatory deadline for system completions in order to get a rebate. On top of all of these requirements, the homeowners association wanted to enact its own rules, which would add additional restrictions and delays.
After we achieved P&Z approval, neighbors — who previously voiced no concerns to us when we told them of our plans — arrived in even greater numbers to the Board of Aldermen meeting to complain about our proposed “solar farm.” There were concerns that panels would fly off the roof like frisbees in the first strong wind, that critters might nest under the panels and possibly cause residents to get rabies, that glare from panels might blind drivers who would run off the road and crash into people’s houses, that our system was too large and should be considered a business because energy might accidentally escape onto the grid (for which we would be compensated), and of course the standard complaint that solar was ugly and would ruin property values in the neighborhood. There were concerns that we might buy Chinese solar panels. Some claimed that anything made in China was junk and didn’t belong in a first-class neighborhood. One neighbor feared that with all of the trees on our property that leaves might collect and cause the panels to spontaneously combust, burning down the entire neighborhood. An alderman expressed concern about our house being too tall for us to be able to clean the panels regularly. To that, I asked him how often he got on top of his roof and cleaned it. Lastly, a respected realtor said he feared that prospective buyers wouldn’t even get out of the car to look at a nearby property for sale if they sighted something ugly nearby.
Funny, I’ve never seen a safety warning on PV panels claiming dangerous flying objects, wildfires, rabies, and automobile accidents as possible consequences of using solar panels.
Our request to install even a single solar panel anywhere on our 4.56 acres of densely forested land was denied by a vote of 6-0 without any explanation. We and the solar installers unsuccessfully tried everything imaginable to get our project approved. Our only recourse was to sue. So we did, and we won.
?zoom=2&fit=570%2C1200
Our solar home
The city fought valiantly, claiming that we filed too late, in the wrong court, in the wrong county, under the wrong statutes, and joined with inappropriate parties (the solar installers and the public service commission). They claimed that local zoning ordinances allowed them to ignore the state’s solar rights act, which declared the right to use solar energy as a property right (property rights are protected by the constitution). The court disagreed and allowed us to install our system. But the city was unhappy and appealed the decision after the system had been up and running for months. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the city’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and were an abuse of discretion. They were ordered to issue us permits, within one business day. If they failed to do so, the court allowed us to build our system per our application, under their authority. Even though our system has been up and running now for 16 months, the city has still stubbornly refused to issue us permits. Shockingly, in the press, the city is touting a victory for cities in our solar panel lawsuit because their restrictive ordinance was not overturned. Cities across Missouri can continue to write restrictive solar ordinances as long as they don’t prevent a homeowner from using solar energy or effectively preventing it. Spoken like a true politician, our 83-year-old mayor, who has been running the town for decades, claims no one at city hall is against solar panels.
The irony in this story is our system, which sits more than a football field away from the curb, and is barely visible to anyone most of the year. Above is a photo of what the controversial system looks like.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/14/crazy-solar-story/#gmZ2W8PdbIUs1Mgf.99
See also:
How ALEC plans to reshape U.S. energy policy in 2014
By Ethan Howland
JANUARY 10, 2014
Who is ALEC?
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded conservative group that drafts model bills and policies for its legislative members to take back to their home states.
ALEC boasts nearly 2,000 state lawmakers as members, according to the group. Typically, ALEC lawmaker members introduce the group's model legislation and resolutions in their home legislatures. Identical ALEC bills sometimes pop up in different states around the country.
ALEC has turned its attention to electric utility issues in recent years. “The ever-increasing governmental control over energy supply, distribution, and use is threatening not only the nation’s prosperity but also individual liberty,” according to ALEC's 2014 Natural Resource Reserve, which lays out the group's model policies on energy, the environment and agriculture for this year....
By Ethan Howland
JANUARY 10, 2014
Who is ALEC?
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded conservative group that drafts model bills and policies for its legislative members to take back to their home states.
ALEC boasts nearly 2,000 state lawmakers as members, according to the group. Typically, ALEC lawmaker members introduce the group's model legislation and resolutions in their home legislatures. Identical ALEC bills sometimes pop up in different states around the country.
ALEC has turned its attention to electric utility issues in recent years. “The ever-increasing governmental control over energy supply, distribution, and use is threatening not only the nation’s prosperity but also individual liberty,” according to ALEC's 2014 Natural Resource Reserve, which lays out the group's model policies on energy, the environment and agriculture for this year....
More at: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/
ALEC documents
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf
Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf
January 14, 2014
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140114p2a00m0na010000c.html
12 hours needed for people within 30-km (18 mile) radius of nuclear plants to evacuate: study
12 hours needed for people within 30-km radius of nuclear plants to evacuate: study
At least 12 hours would be needed for everyone living within a radius of 30 kilometers from nuclear power plants in Japan to evacuate in the event of a nuclear accident, according to research results conducted by a private group.
In cases where the use of evacuation routes is limited to national highways due to complex disasters such as earthquakes, people within a radius of 30 kilometers from the Tokai No. 2 Power Station in Ibaraki Prefecture would need five days and a half to complete their evacuation. Those people living near the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station in Shizuoka Prefecture would likely need about six days to move out of the 30-kilometer zone, the research findings show.
The research, conducted by "Kankyo Keizai Kenkyujo" (research institute on environmental economics), is apparently the first analysis covering all of the nuclear power plants in Japan. The research results highlight the fact that it is almost impossible for all of the residents near a nuclear power station to evacuate fast enough to avoid radiation exposure in the event of an accident in which radioactive substances are released into the atmosphere.
....
The research was conducted on municipalities that lie within a radius of 30 kilometers from nuclear power plants and are required to prepare emergency evacuation plans under the government's guidelines for responses to nuclear disasters. The research was also based on the assumption that 30 percent of registered buses and 50 percent of registered privately-owned cars in each of those municipalities would be used for evacuation.
The study was also based on the assumption that all of the residents in a given area would start moving simultaneously to evacuate...
At least 12 hours would be needed for everyone living within a radius of 30 kilometers from nuclear power plants in Japan to evacuate in the event of a nuclear accident, according to research results conducted by a private group.
In cases where the use of evacuation routes is limited to national highways due to complex disasters such as earthquakes, people within a radius of 30 kilometers from the Tokai No. 2 Power Station in Ibaraki Prefecture would need five days and a half to complete their evacuation. Those people living near the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station in Shizuoka Prefecture would likely need about six days to move out of the 30-kilometer zone, the research findings show.
The research, conducted by "Kankyo Keizai Kenkyujo" (research institute on environmental economics), is apparently the first analysis covering all of the nuclear power plants in Japan. The research results highlight the fact that it is almost impossible for all of the residents near a nuclear power station to evacuate fast enough to avoid radiation exposure in the event of an accident in which radioactive substances are released into the atmosphere.
....
The research was conducted on municipalities that lie within a radius of 30 kilometers from nuclear power plants and are required to prepare emergency evacuation plans under the government's guidelines for responses to nuclear disasters. The research was also based on the assumption that 30 percent of registered buses and 50 percent of registered privately-owned cars in each of those municipalities would be used for evacuation.
The study was also based on the assumption that all of the residents in a given area would start moving simultaneously to evacuate...
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140114p2a00m0na010000c.html
January 14, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/13/3156851/risky-business-committee/
A Massive New Assessment Of Climate Change’s Economic Risks Is Ready For Business
A Massive New Assessment Of Climate Change’s Economic Risks Is Ready For Business
BY JEFF SPROSS ON JANUARY 13, 2014
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
A new venture aimed at building a sophisticated and sweeping assessment of the risks climate change poses to the American economy just announced its Risk Committee lineup Monday.
The Risky Business initiative is co-chaired by its three founders: former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer. The three will sit on the Risk Committee, along with former CEOs, senators, and U.S. secretaries including Robert Rubin, Olympia Snowe, and George Schultz. The group is tasked with reviewing the initiative’s eventual assessment, as well as helping with messaging and sharing the results with the regions, industries, and markets that face the greatest risks from climate change. Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Office of Hank Paulson, and Next Generation — groups associated with the three co-founders — as well as the Skoll Global Threats Fund, are providing staff and support for the project.
The assessment itself has two main goals: One, to provide an independent assessment, drawing on models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chnage and the National Climate Assessment, along with independent research, that divides the U.S. into eight regions and presents the climate risks for each as a range of probabilities. That report will be released in 2014, after which the second goal, an effort led by the Risk Committee to raise awareness of the findings, will begin.
When he talked to Bloomberg News about the project this past October, Steyer recalled an August 2012 meeting with a group of major financial players in which he warned them that arguably climate change posed the biggest future risk to the U.S. economy. “It’s like I was saying that what’s going to make a difference in the economy is unicorns,” said Steyer. “I thought to myself: These guys need to be made aware of the risks here.”
Steyer quit his 26-year career as a hedge fund manager that December...
BY JEFF SPROSS ON JANUARY 13, 2014
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
A new venture aimed at building a sophisticated and sweeping assessment of the risks climate change poses to the American economy just announced its Risk Committee lineup Monday.
The Risky Business initiative is co-chaired by its three founders: former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer. The three will sit on the Risk Committee, along with former CEOs, senators, and U.S. secretaries including Robert Rubin, Olympia Snowe, and George Schultz. The group is tasked with reviewing the initiative’s eventual assessment, as well as helping with messaging and sharing the results with the regions, industries, and markets that face the greatest risks from climate change. Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Office of Hank Paulson, and Next Generation — groups associated with the three co-founders — as well as the Skoll Global Threats Fund, are providing staff and support for the project.
The assessment itself has two main goals: One, to provide an independent assessment, drawing on models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chnage and the National Climate Assessment, along with independent research, that divides the U.S. into eight regions and presents the climate risks for each as a range of probabilities. That report will be released in 2014, after which the second goal, an effort led by the Risk Committee to raise awareness of the findings, will begin.
When he talked to Bloomberg News about the project this past October, Steyer recalled an August 2012 meeting with a group of major financial players in which he warned them that arguably climate change posed the biggest future risk to the U.S. economy. “It’s like I was saying that what’s going to make a difference in the economy is unicorns,” said Steyer. “I thought to myself: These guys need to be made aware of the risks here.”
Steyer quit his 26-year career as a hedge fund manager that December...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/13/3156851/risky-business-committee/
January 14, 2014
BY JOE ROMM ON JANUARY 13, 2014 AT 5:23 PM
This April, Showtime will start airing its ground-breaking climate change TV series on the experiences and personal stories of people whose lives have been touched by climate change. Years Of Living Dangerously is an 8-part series produced by the legendary storytellers and film-makers James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Weintraub -– together with three former 60 Minutes producers who have 18 Emmys between them.
While reviewing the segments for technical accuracy as Chief Science Editor, I’ve been blown away by just how visually and narratively compelling the show is. It is not just going to be a landmark climate change series, it is going to be a landmark television series, like Ken Burns’ The Civil War.
Much as the best, most innovative long-form drama has moved from film to TV, in shows like the Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Homeland, and Breaking Bad, so too with documentaries. Here is the trailer:
http://vimeo.com/78162825
....
Nothing like this 8-part series has ever been put on TV before, a collaboration between the amazing storytellers mentioned above and top-flight journalists (like Chris Hayes, Lesley Stahl, and Tom Friedman) and some of Hollywood’s biggest stars (like Matt Damon, Ian Somerholder, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, and Harrison Ford). They provide gripping reports of people affected by, and seeking solutions to, climate change.
....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/13/3151271/showtime-years-living-dangerously/
8 part Showtime Doc on Climate Change coming Sunday nights April-May
Showtime To Launch Landmark Climate TV Series ‘Years Of Living Dangerously’ In AprilBY JOE ROMM ON JANUARY 13, 2014 AT 5:23 PM
This April, Showtime will start airing its ground-breaking climate change TV series on the experiences and personal stories of people whose lives have been touched by climate change. Years Of Living Dangerously is an 8-part series produced by the legendary storytellers and film-makers James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Weintraub -– together with three former 60 Minutes producers who have 18 Emmys between them.
While reviewing the segments for technical accuracy as Chief Science Editor, I’ve been blown away by just how visually and narratively compelling the show is. It is not just going to be a landmark climate change series, it is going to be a landmark television series, like Ken Burns’ The Civil War.
Much as the best, most innovative long-form drama has moved from film to TV, in shows like the Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Homeland, and Breaking Bad, so too with documentaries. Here is the trailer:
http://vimeo.com/78162825
....
Nothing like this 8-part series has ever been put on TV before, a collaboration between the amazing storytellers mentioned above and top-flight journalists (like Chris Hayes, Lesley Stahl, and Tom Friedman) and some of Hollywood’s biggest stars (like Matt Damon, Ian Somerholder, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, and Harrison Ford). They provide gripping reports of people affected by, and seeking solutions to, climate change.
....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/13/3151271/showtime-years-living-dangerously/
January 14, 2014
A bit more here (including links to original docs) http://www.utilitydive.com/news/epa-issues-tough-emissions-rules-for-wyoming-coal-plants/214075/
Drip, drip, drip....
Looks like EPA haze rules will shut down some coal plants
The visual impact to national parks of coal fired generation is an area subject to EPA regulatory control. These rules have been in the works for about 10 years.
EPA issues tough emissions rules for Wyoming coal plants
By Ethan Howland Jan. 13, 2014
Dive Brief:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued tough air emissions rules for certain coal-fired power plants in Wyoming, but the standards may not be as strict as proposed rules released in mid-2013.
<snip>
Dive Insight:
This summer, PacifiCorp said that the EPA's initial proposal would force the utility to retire some of its coal units in Wyoming. Utilities in Arizona and New Mexico have developed plans, and in one case executed plans, to retire coal-fired units as compromise measures in meeting their regional haze requirements. Now that Wyoming's rules are out, PacifiCorp and other utilities may make similar proposals.
By Ethan Howland Jan. 13, 2014
Dive Brief:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued tough air emissions rules for certain coal-fired power plants in Wyoming, but the standards may not be as strict as proposed rules released in mid-2013.
<snip>
Dive Insight:
This summer, PacifiCorp said that the EPA's initial proposal would force the utility to retire some of its coal units in Wyoming. Utilities in Arizona and New Mexico have developed plans, and in one case executed plans, to retire coal-fired units as compromise measures in meeting their regional haze requirements. Now that Wyoming's rules are out, PacifiCorp and other utilities may make similar proposals.
A bit more here (including links to original docs) http://www.utilitydive.com/news/epa-issues-tough-emissions-rules-for-wyoming-coal-plants/214075/
Drip, drip, drip....
January 13, 2014
Yes, it does. It indicates a definite change in the fundamental economics of the global energy supply and that translates into a fundamental change in the structure of our energy supply.
That is another extraordinary claim. It may be true, but we should have more than the unsupported word of someone that only a couple of months ago didn't know that O2 impacted the amount of CO2 we get from carbon fuels.
Now back to the first point and your latest offering. The fact that the trajectory of renewables is to provide 85% of US demand growth certainly contradicts the EIA and IEA projections of growth for renewables, doesn't it? But that apparently doesn't impact your analysis for some reason. (It could be that you don't actually have an analysis but we'll set that aside for the moment.)
Here is some information you might want to familiarize yourself with: The EIA and the IEA are notorious for serving the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Their projections regarding adoption of renewable technology (including the investment landscape) has been horrible since ... forever.
That isn't just my opinion, either. It became so bad that a couple of years ago the International Renewable ENergy Agency (IRENA) was formed to address the shortcomings inherent in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) mandate.
In fact, all the conservative forecasts about the progress of alternative energy sources have consistently been, not only wrong, but grossly wrong. Reviewing the issue shows that high renewable growth scenarios have consistently proven to be far more accurate than conservative growth scenarios. (Under 'Fair Use' I've included the excerpt from the free downloadable International Renewable Energy Association's (IRENA) 2013 Global Futures Report. This 76 page non-technical report is
Available here:
http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalFuturesReport.aspx
In terms of historic credibility, the Greenpeace estimate has far more standing than the EIA, which is even more conservative than the IEA.
Is that supposed to address the content of the thread above?
Here, specifically are the claims you are defending:
Better, but not enough to change the outcome, ...
85% of the 'growth demand' of power generation does not address the present demand base we are starting from.
All energy used in the US including transportation was over 5 gigatons in 2012 with the world putting 31 gigatons into the atmosphere. Just curbing the growth of demand doesn't change a thing.
85% of the 'growth demand' of power generation does not address the present demand base we are starting from.
All energy used in the US including transportation was over 5 gigatons in 2012 with the world putting 31 gigatons into the atmosphere. Just curbing the growth of demand doesn't change a thing.
Yes, it does. It indicates a definite change in the fundamental economics of the global energy supply and that translates into a fundamental change in the structure of our energy supply.
The mid-late 2020's is when the latest estimates say the global economy needs to be carbon free, to maintain the not very safe 2*C target for 2100. The recent research indicating errors in the climate sensitivity models move those estimates even further forward.
That is another extraordinary claim. It may be true, but we should have more than the unsupported word of someone that only a couple of months ago didn't know that O2 impacted the amount of CO2 we get from carbon fuels.
Now back to the first point and your latest offering. The fact that the trajectory of renewables is to provide 85% of US demand growth certainly contradicts the EIA and IEA projections of growth for renewables, doesn't it? But that apparently doesn't impact your analysis for some reason. (It could be that you don't actually have an analysis but we'll set that aside for the moment.)
Here is some information you might want to familiarize yourself with: The EIA and the IEA are notorious for serving the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Their projections regarding adoption of renewable technology (including the investment landscape) has been horrible since ... forever.
That isn't just my opinion, either. It became so bad that a couple of years ago the International Renewable ENergy Agency (IRENA) was formed to address the shortcomings inherent in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) mandate.
In fact, all the conservative forecasts about the progress of alternative energy sources have consistently been, not only wrong, but grossly wrong. Reviewing the issue shows that high renewable growth scenarios have consistently proven to be far more accurate than conservative growth scenarios. (Under 'Fair Use' I've included the excerpt from the free downloadable International Renewable Energy Association's (IRENA) 2013 Global Futures Report. This 76 page non-technical report is
"a pioneering publication that provides access to the range of credible possibilities on the future of renewable energy. The report is based on interviews with over 170 leading experts around the world and the projections of 50 recently published scenarios. The report can serve as a tool for dialogue and discussion on future options, and compliments well the REN21 Renewables Global Status Report.
Available here:
http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalFuturesReport.aspx
In terms of historic credibility, the Greenpeace estimate has far more standing than the EIA, which is even more conservative than the IEA.
(pgs 15-17) The world gets about 17–18% of its energy from renewables, including about 9% from “traditional biomass” and about 8% from “modern renewables.”a, b The “traditional” share has been relatively stable for many years, while the “modern” share has grown rapidly since the late 1990s. During the 1990s, projections of renewable energy that were considered most credible, for example by the International Energy Agency (IEA), foresaw shares of modern renewables reaching no more than 5–10% into the far future, given the policies and technologies existing at the time. As a result of the market, policy, and technology developments of the past 15 years, those early projections have already been reached.
In 2011, about 30 countries were getting 20% or more of their total energy from renewables, and some as high as 50%.c (The “total energy” metric counts electricity, heating/cooling, and transport.) Countries in this category include Austria, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Uganda, and Uruguay. The European Union (EU) as a whole and the United States both stood at 12%. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and several other countries were above 10%, and Japan was at 6%. Furthermore, in 2011, about half of all new electric power capacity added worldwide was renewable—as much capacity as fossil and nuclear combined. In interviews, industry experts emphasized that historical thinking and projections about renewable energy remaining a “fringe” techno- logy no longer make sense.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, as renewable energy started to grow more rapidly than many had predicted, new scenarios emerged that showed much higher long-term shares of renewables. Notable among these was a “Sustained Growth” scenario by the Shell oil company that showed 50% of global energy from renewables by 2050, a figure that shocked many at the time. The IEA also released a report, Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a Sustainable Future, that outlined a “Sustainable Development” scenario with a 35% share from renewables.
By the mid-2000s, a larger number of scenarios emerged showing 30–50% shares. Prominent among these was the first (2006) edition of the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP), which gave a set of “Accelerated Technology” scenarios for 2050. In these sce- narios, an intermediate case showed a 24% share, and the highest case showed a 30% share. A few years earlier, the German Advisory Council on Global Change (2004) had published its “Exemplary Path” scenario that projected a 50% share by 2050. And in 2007, the first edition of the Energy [R]evolution scenario by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) likewise projected a 50% share by 2050
The most recent scenarios, published in 2010–2012, could be viewed in three main groups: “conservative,” “moderate,” and “high renewables.”5 See Figure 1 for the wide variation between groups. (See Annex 2 for a list of the recent global, regional, and national scenarios covered in this report, including full citations correspond- ing to scenario abbreviations used throughout the text, and see the online supplement, “Scenario Profiles Report,” for summaries of these scenarios.)
Conservative scenarios in the 15–20% range can be found pub- lished by oil companies, some industry groups, the IEA, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). For example, BP’s Energy Outlook 2030 (2012) and ExxonMobil’s Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (2012) both show an under-15% share by 2030–2040. The EIA (2011) shows 14% by 2035, and the IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO, 2012), in its “New Policies” scenario, shows 18% by 2035. Conservative viewpoints by oil and gas companies mirror such conservative scenarios. These companies continue to make state- ments such as “fossil fuels will continue to provide the majority of the world’s energy supplies for decades to come” (Chevron), and “oil’s preeminence in the global energy mix will remain unchallenged in the foreseeable future” (Total).
Moderate scenarios show long-term renewable energy shares in the 25–40% range. Two IEA examples are the IEA WEO (2012) “450” carbon-stabilization scenario, which shows a 27% renewable energy
16 share by 2035, and the IEA ETP (2012) “2DS” scenario, which shows a 41% share by 2050. The IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy (2011) synthesized the results of over 160 climate-mitigation scenarios (most from 2009–2010) and found that over half of them project shares above 27% by 2050—a large group in the “moderate” category.7 (And many show very high absolute amounts of renewables, too, under high global energy demand scenarios; see Box 2.)
High-renewables scenarios project 50–95% energy shares of renewables by 2050. For example, the GEA Global Energy Assessment (2012) shows up to 75% in the highest of its “Efficiency” cases and a median share of 55%. The “ACES” scenario by the IEA multilateral program Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (2010) shows 55%. And among the group of 160 scenarios surveyed by the IPCC (2011), there are a number in the range of 50–80%. The biennial Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution scenario, which has become the most widely recognized and thorough projection made by renew- able energy advocates, shows 82%.a At the highest end, WWF (2011) shows a 95% share.8
The credibility of such high-renewables scenarios has increased over the years, following a long tradition of “100%” scenarios dating back to the 1970s by renewable energy advocates and visionaries. The difference is that now, given the scope of government policy targets and market growth in recent years, such high-renewables scenarios are grounded in growing present-day markets.9 (See Endnote 9 for further discussion of “credibility” in the context of scenarios.)
In interviews, most industry experts believed that the world could reach at least 30–50% shares of renewables in the long term. (See also Box 3 for a recent global goal of 30–35%.) And some experts advocated for 100% or near-100% futures. European experts cited considerably higher shares just for Europe (see following section), with many saying that Europe could attain 50–70% shares.10 (Also see following sections for more expert opinions based on individual sectors.)
In 2011, about 30 countries were getting 20% or more of their total energy from renewables, and some as high as 50%.c (The “total energy” metric counts electricity, heating/cooling, and transport.) Countries in this category include Austria, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Uganda, and Uruguay. The European Union (EU) as a whole and the United States both stood at 12%. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and several other countries were above 10%, and Japan was at 6%. Furthermore, in 2011, about half of all new electric power capacity added worldwide was renewable—as much capacity as fossil and nuclear combined. In interviews, industry experts emphasized that historical thinking and projections about renewable energy remaining a “fringe” techno- logy no longer make sense.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, as renewable energy started to grow more rapidly than many had predicted, new scenarios emerged that showed much higher long-term shares of renewables. Notable among these was a “Sustained Growth” scenario by the Shell oil company that showed 50% of global energy from renewables by 2050, a figure that shocked many at the time. The IEA also released a report, Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a Sustainable Future, that outlined a “Sustainable Development” scenario with a 35% share from renewables.
By the mid-2000s, a larger number of scenarios emerged showing 30–50% shares. Prominent among these was the first (2006) edition of the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP), which gave a set of “Accelerated Technology” scenarios for 2050. In these sce- narios, an intermediate case showed a 24% share, and the highest case showed a 30% share. A few years earlier, the German Advisory Council on Global Change (2004) had published its “Exemplary Path” scenario that projected a 50% share by 2050. And in 2007, the first edition of the Energy [R]evolution scenario by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) likewise projected a 50% share by 2050
The most recent scenarios, published in 2010–2012, could be viewed in three main groups: “conservative,” “moderate,” and “high renewables.”5 See Figure 1 for the wide variation between groups. (See Annex 2 for a list of the recent global, regional, and national scenarios covered in this report, including full citations correspond- ing to scenario abbreviations used throughout the text, and see the online supplement, “Scenario Profiles Report,” for summaries of these scenarios.)
Conservative scenarios in the 15–20% range can be found pub- lished by oil companies, some industry groups, the IEA, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). For example, BP’s Energy Outlook 2030 (2012) and ExxonMobil’s Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (2012) both show an under-15% share by 2030–2040. The EIA (2011) shows 14% by 2035, and the IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO, 2012), in its “New Policies” scenario, shows 18% by 2035. Conservative viewpoints by oil and gas companies mirror such conservative scenarios. These companies continue to make state- ments such as “fossil fuels will continue to provide the majority of the world’s energy supplies for decades to come” (Chevron), and “oil’s preeminence in the global energy mix will remain unchallenged in the foreseeable future” (Total).
Moderate scenarios show long-term renewable energy shares in the 25–40% range. Two IEA examples are the IEA WEO (2012) “450” carbon-stabilization scenario, which shows a 27% renewable energy
16 share by 2035, and the IEA ETP (2012) “2DS” scenario, which shows a 41% share by 2050. The IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy (2011) synthesized the results of over 160 climate-mitigation scenarios (most from 2009–2010) and found that over half of them project shares above 27% by 2050—a large group in the “moderate” category.7 (And many show very high absolute amounts of renewables, too, under high global energy demand scenarios; see Box 2.)
High-renewables scenarios project 50–95% energy shares of renewables by 2050. For example, the GEA Global Energy Assessment (2012) shows up to 75% in the highest of its “Efficiency” cases and a median share of 55%. The “ACES” scenario by the IEA multilateral program Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (2010) shows 55%. And among the group of 160 scenarios surveyed by the IPCC (2011), there are a number in the range of 50–80%. The biennial Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution scenario, which has become the most widely recognized and thorough projection made by renew- able energy advocates, shows 82%.a At the highest end, WWF (2011) shows a 95% share.8
The credibility of such high-renewables scenarios has increased over the years, following a long tradition of “100%” scenarios dating back to the 1970s by renewable energy advocates and visionaries. The difference is that now, given the scope of government policy targets and market growth in recent years, such high-renewables scenarios are grounded in growing present-day markets.9 (See Endnote 9 for further discussion of “credibility” in the context of scenarios.)
In interviews, most industry experts believed that the world could reach at least 30–50% shares of renewables in the long term. (See also Box 3 for a recent global goal of 30–35%.) And some experts advocated for 100% or near-100% futures. European experts cited considerably higher shares just for Europe (see following section), with many saying that Europe could attain 50–70% shares.10 (Also see following sections for more expert opinions based on individual sectors.)
January 13, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2014/01/13/folsom-labs-once-again-shows-why-solar-is-the-future/
Folsom Labs: Another Example Why Solar Is The Future
Folsom Labs: Another Example Why Solar Is The Future
1/13/2014
...Getting final bank approval is one of the most arduous, and needlessly expensive, processes in putting together commercial or utility solar power plants. Developers seeking loans have to provide meticulous information about performance, product specifications and projected output to banks. Incorporating a particular inverter or other piece of technology can kill a deal or require the developers to return to the drawing board.
Soft costs like financing account for 64% of the cost of a system, according to the National Renewable Energy Labs. Financing rates aren’t cheap either: the Rocky Mountain Institute estimated that the cost of credit for utility and commercial projects on average in 2012 came to 9 to 9.2 percent.
HelioScope, a cloud-based platform from a new company called Folsom Labs, is part of an industry-wide effort to change that. HelioScope effectively lets engineers create accurate, granular models of solar power plants. Current modeling tools create models generally take a top-down approach to modeling and operate on various assumptions, claims founder Paul Grana.
“We do the physics from the bottom up,” he says, resulting in a more accurate projection. Just as important, it’s fast. Let’s say a developer designed a 100-megawatt system with a particular brand of solar panel. The bank sneers. An engineer can quickly swap in a higher-performance (albeit more expensive) panel and in a few minutes you have a complete new model of the solar farm based on the different panel.
Going back to the drawing board is far less arduous, which in turn cuts the time and energy required to obtain financing...
1/13/2014
...Getting final bank approval is one of the most arduous, and needlessly expensive, processes in putting together commercial or utility solar power plants. Developers seeking loans have to provide meticulous information about performance, product specifications and projected output to banks. Incorporating a particular inverter or other piece of technology can kill a deal or require the developers to return to the drawing board.
Soft costs like financing account for 64% of the cost of a system, according to the National Renewable Energy Labs. Financing rates aren’t cheap either: the Rocky Mountain Institute estimated that the cost of credit for utility and commercial projects on average in 2012 came to 9 to 9.2 percent.
HelioScope, a cloud-based platform from a new company called Folsom Labs, is part of an industry-wide effort to change that. HelioScope effectively lets engineers create accurate, granular models of solar power plants. Current modeling tools create models generally take a top-down approach to modeling and operate on various assumptions, claims founder Paul Grana.
“We do the physics from the bottom up,” he says, resulting in a more accurate projection. Just as important, it’s fast. Let’s say a developer designed a 100-megawatt system with a particular brand of solar panel. The bank sneers. An engineer can quickly swap in a higher-performance (albeit more expensive) panel and in a few minutes you have a complete new model of the solar farm based on the different panel.
Going back to the drawing board is far less arduous, which in turn cuts the time and energy required to obtain financing...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2014/01/13/folsom-labs-once-again-shows-why-solar-is-the-future/
January 13, 2014
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/01/12/commentary/japan-goes-back-to-the-future-to-affirm-energy-foundation/#.UtO_BHl0Uy4
Japan as an example of the effect of centralized energy (the hard path)
The remainder of article reviews the process of decision-making that was involved in the formulation of these two conflicting energy policies.
Japan goes back to the future to affirm energy ‘foundation’
BY PHILIP WHITE
SPECIAL TO THE JAPAN TIMES
JAN 12, 2014
ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA – On Dec. 6 the Japanese government released a new draft Basic Energy Plan for public comment. This will replace the 2010 BEP, which is still legally current despite the fact that its foundations were blown away by the March 11, 2011, nuclear accident at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.
In September 2012, the then Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government issued an “Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment,” which set the unprecedented goal of phasing out nuclear power by 2039. But this did not have the same legal status as the BEP, and when the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won back power in the December 2012 election, it declared that it would review the DPJ’s strategy from scratch, stating that it did not support a nuclear phase-out.
The recently released draft BEP goes as close as possible to preserving the pre-Fukushima nuclear status quo, but with all nuclear power plants currently closed down and public opinion still strongly in favor of a nuclear phase out, it was unable to set ambitious targets for nuclear energy.
The 2010 BEP aimed for 50 percent of electricity generation from nuclear power by 2030, with at least 14 new nuclear power plants being constructed in that time, but the recently released draft eschews targets altogether, settling instead for qualitative statements affirming the continuing role of nuclear power. It states that nuclear energy is an “important baseload power source that serves as a foundation” for the stability of Japan’s energy supply.
The word “foundation” was added for emphasis...
BY PHILIP WHITE
SPECIAL TO THE JAPAN TIMES
JAN 12, 2014
ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA – On Dec. 6 the Japanese government released a new draft Basic Energy Plan for public comment. This will replace the 2010 BEP, which is still legally current despite the fact that its foundations were blown away by the March 11, 2011, nuclear accident at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.
In September 2012, the then Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government issued an “Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment,” which set the unprecedented goal of phasing out nuclear power by 2039. But this did not have the same legal status as the BEP, and when the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won back power in the December 2012 election, it declared that it would review the DPJ’s strategy from scratch, stating that it did not support a nuclear phase-out.
The recently released draft BEP goes as close as possible to preserving the pre-Fukushima nuclear status quo, but with all nuclear power plants currently closed down and public opinion still strongly in favor of a nuclear phase out, it was unable to set ambitious targets for nuclear energy.
The 2010 BEP aimed for 50 percent of electricity generation from nuclear power by 2030, with at least 14 new nuclear power plants being constructed in that time, but the recently released draft eschews targets altogether, settling instead for qualitative statements affirming the continuing role of nuclear power. It states that nuclear energy is an “important baseload power source that serves as a foundation” for the stability of Japan’s energy supply.
The word “foundation” was added for emphasis...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/01/12/commentary/japan-goes-back-to-the-future-to-affirm-energy-foundation/#.UtO_BHl0Uy4
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
