Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind | Hacker News Reader

Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind

nytimes.com

43 pointsboh13 comments

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.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-10/off-the-grid...

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).

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?

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

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/

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.

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.

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...

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

The Australian state I live in (SA) took 72% of its power generation from wind power for one (windy) day last week.

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.

How do you renew the supply of nuclear fuel?

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com