All new Spanish buildings must go solar

[jpak]

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2708

New building regulations introduced by the Spanish government will give the country some of the most advanced solar legislation in the world.

The legislation will require, amongst other things, that all new domestic buildings cover 30–70 per cent of hot water needs using solar thermal, depending on location and quantity of hot water used. The obligation also applies to buildings undergoing serious renovation.

In addition to the solar thermal obligation, the new building codes will require that all commercial buildings over 4000 m2 be equipped with photovoltaic panels to generate electricity. Thanks to existing feed-in laws, PV is already growing quickly in Spain and this requirement looks set to increase its application even further.

President of the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF), Ole Pilgaard said: ‘This is excellent news for the Spanish citizens and for all Europe. Today, planning new buildings without a simple solar thermal system is a really strange idea, as we know that oil and gas will become extremely scarse within the lifetime of new buildings. The new Spanish building codes will help the European construction sector to adapt sooner to the new reality.’

<more>

[Mythsaje]

1. Just goes to show...

Europe is way ahead of us, and gaining ground.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. That's what you get with Socialists in power

They hate us for our freedoms, you know.

:evilgrin:

--p!

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. Time to start thinking "Dune"

It may help stop the global warming clock for a while, or at least slow it down. Time to onserve and use more passive energy resources.

[MrPrax]

4. I like news like this...

and I am going to hit recommend just because people need reminding that the 'voluntary' model of environmentalism is not sustainable. A few mandatory restrictions, go a long long way.

If governments, especially in the US, would have simply toughened emission controls, closed the loopholes for things like the SUV and forced compliance with alternative-energy transportation with realistic goals, then things like the US auto industry would be in much better shape; the cars would be better, more popular and more people would be employed in a viable export industry.

Spain is smart...spanish construction firms that specialize in this will be highly sought-after because they are innovators in a field that will dominate a lot of the future.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Pah! Godless Commies...

Next they'll be introducing universal free healthcare, civil unions, or trying to get in the top 10 countries for quality of life.

Oh, wait a minute...

[dcfirefighter]

6. Which uses less energy?

An urban block with 10% solar hot water or a suburban neighborhood with 50% solar hot water?

In the US (sorry, I couldn't use Spain), energy use by sector:

Industrial 33%
Transportation 28% (roughly 60% of transport energy is used by cars & light trucks)
Commercial 18% (roughly 8% of the commercial energy use is for hot water)
Residential 21% (roughly 17% of the residential energy use is for hot water)

Theoretically, the Spanish government could hamper densification, which reduces transport energy spent (0.28*0.60 = 17% of energy use) in order to make a dent on, new construction only, (0.18*0.08 + 0.21*0.17 = 5% of energy use)

Furthermore, in each individual case, a specific new building may benefit more, per EuroDollar spent, on better insulation, lower energy materials, more efficient HVAC, better windows, etc., rather than, necessarily, a solar hot water system. That being said, I believe that SHW is one of THE best uses of 'alternative' energy.

This is merely 'feel-good' legislation that helps the boutique solar hot water industry at the expense of the construction industry and EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN A BUILDING. It does this by adding to the cost of new construction, which means those seeking housing or a place to start a business must pay more than they otherwise would have to pay to obtain such a building.

This is the effect of central planning.

Conversely, if the Spanish government charged a few Euro per ton of CO2 emitted for primary energy generators and petrol sales; and used such revenue to provide each Spaniard with a fungible 'energy' credit; each Spaniard would then spend his credit in a manner most appropriate to his situation: some would spend it on insulation, some on Solar Hot Water systems, some on better food, or new shoes, or whatever they chose. The increase in energy costs, due to the carbon tax, would lead each Spaniard to conserve, in a manner most appropriate to his situation.

There are too many situations and alternatives available to be able to effectively dictate specific energy saving measures.

[ladjf]

7. Why is it that in every posting stream about efforts to move

forward with alternative energy sources that there is almost always a least one very thorough
rebuttal that sounds exactly like the positions taken by most of the American utility companies?

The fossil fuel supply is finite, limited and very hazardous to health.

I applaud efforts that are being made around the world to promote alternate energy technologies. It's being done in all industrialized countries except the U.S and Britain. Are the people in Scandinavia,
Germany, Japan and other places all doing it for "window dressing", "feel good" reasons? Hondo, for instance, will be entering into the PV panel production this year. They aren't the kind of company that manufactures stuff for the fun of it.

[dcfirefighter]

9. I don't know If I sound like the American Utility Companies...

But I have been consistent in my view that market forces are stronger and more effective than government fiats.

I'm pointing out that, dollar for dollar, there are often better ways to save fossil fuels / carbon emissions than by requiring solar hot water heaters on all new buildings.

1) water heating is a very small portion of energy use
2) new buildings represent a very small portion of water heating

furthermore, I offered an alternative, one that I am sure would save far more fossil fuel, reduce carbon emissions further, and maintain a higher economy than the Spanish edict. My proposal would allow much more flexibility in design for new buildings: a dense urban block (which already uses less energy) could use it's roof tops for patios and greenery rather than solar collectors. A house could use geothermal exchange to heat water, using wind power bought from an electric utility. Most importantly, my proposal attacks carbon emissions wherever they are: new buildings, old buildings; trucks, cars & planes; manufacturing and agriculture.

So, yes, to answer your question: governments that require a tiny fraction of their country to do something that will affect their carbon output by another tiny fraction are doing it for 'window dressing'. They're doing so they may say they've done something.

And Hondo, whomever they are, are entering PV production because they believe they can earn money doing so. See my first line.

[ladjf]

15. I misspelled Honda. Sorry.

As for "market forces": There is a two year waiting list for commercial sized wind generators and almost the same backlog for the best PV panels due to a very high demand. Several big companies are moving into the PV panel business in 2006 and 2007. As this happens, the cost of the panels will drop and the efficiency will rise. While the current cost of PV generated electicity is two to three times the conventional price per kw, the PV cost per kw is dropping fast.

[phantom power]

13. I like to think of it this way...

Government is best for setting ground rules and goals. Things like environmental standards, performance standards, safety standards, etc. How those standards, or goals, are met is best left to market forces.

A fuel tax, or carbon tax, is a good example of that. It says "Everybody is going to pay extra for burning carbon into CO2, in the form of this tax." How each individual person, or corporation, responds to that basic ground rule is up to them, and various market forces will tend to guide those decisions.

By contrast, a rule saying "You have to install solar water heaters" is not as effective, since it dictates a particular solution that may or may not be the most sensible use of money or other resources to solve the problem.

However, I would agree that such a regulation is better than doing absolutely nothing, which appears to be the current U.S. stance.

[rman]

12. otoh we can see what happens when nothing is dictated:

people act as though there is no looming energy crisis, and nothing happens. (save for a very few isolated initiatives that also don't make a dent in overall energy use)

[rfkrfk]

8. nationwide building code, won't work in the US, this a state issue

this is a state and local issue

[dcfirefighter]

10. Nationwide Carbon Tax

interstate commerce clause - atmospheric carbon crosses state lines.

[hatrack]

11. Same principle as acid rain legislation

Not that it's solved the problem, but it's helped, and the legal structure is there.

[Pachamama]

14. We are going solar this summer!

It's going to be a 3.0 system and cost us roughly $25,000.00. The way we look at it, its going to reduce our carbon footprint on this planet and eventually when the upcoming peak oil crisis comes and costs are sky high (or not even available) then we will be able to have power. We figured to do it now before there is a run on it....

In CA, they just put in to effect the "Million Solar" Program....they want to encourage atleast a million homes and businesses going solar. Our local school went totally solar this year and so did our local grocery store.

We here are lucky at how many days of abundant sun we have....I look forward to the day California and other states and the Federal Gov't make a law like the Spanish Govt'.