Well this is a great initiative. But it is surprising that the City Hall is exempted though.

The article mentions that the city hall is exempt, but omits the reason why it is exempt...something to think about when a writer writes an article.... is the exemption because the building is historical or are the architechtural issues with the building, are there no south facing walls or ceilings (yes, I'm being silly here).

Despite a few exemptions for a few buildings/roofs, what an incredible project the city has set forth, probably one of the most progressive movements by a single city anywhere.

We need projects like this to show the world that alternative fuels work, the best way is to do the project and then crunch the numbers and show in number of dollars how much can be saved with solar energy......this is how you get big business involved with getting their knees green.... it's all about the "green"....

To see more about solar projects and what Germany is doing as a nation, go to www.pbs.org and do a search for "Saved by the Sun".

Although City Hall isn't as old and historic as say, Elisabethkirche or the Schloss, it is still a fairly old and stately building. (not that i'm trying to excuse it, but perhaps that's some of the logic)

I lived in Marburg for a year as a foreign exchange student when i was at University - it's not surprising at all to me that Marburg would be first on the bandwagon of this eco-endeavor! It's other notable first was to be the home to the first Protestant University (at least in Germany)

This article makes me happy on many many levels! :-)!

I like the idea but I think since they are REQUIRING people to have solar, they should pay for it.
I think there should be a large subsidy to help people pay for it since it's required or the city should pay for it since they require it.
I hope people don't move out the city because of it but it would suck to HAVE to put a solar panel up when you have to get a new roof.
I personally want solar on my home but it's another thing when I HAVE to have it.

Its an interestng point that Courtney makes. I`m not sure where i stand on that.

The questions is really weather you frame solar as
an obligation or a responsibility. If it where an obligation to the state then perhaps the state should pay for it, but if its a social responsiblity then providing it can be paid for by the people perhaps it should be paid for by them.

Certainly it can only be justified if there are significant social or environmental harms without taking the measure.

I'd say that pretty cool. But not everyone can afford to invest 4000€ into a solar system though.... -:( Especially when you have to pay to change the heating system for exeample.... They should increase the incentive subsidy to at least 50% of the solar equipement cost like in France.

I love the forward thinking of Germany and Sweden.
It does seem a little bit steep though, to mandate into law that the homeowner foot 90%+ of the bill for what you, as the lawmakers, are telling them to do though. ~4000 Euros spent for the Solar, with a 250 Euro kickback.. *shrug*
I look at what it's like here in NC, and other parts of the US and the tax credit, or sitpend given to the homeowner for using alternative energy is just so much larger. Maybe the rewards will drop once more people start using it...

Maybe not everybody has read the article good enough, not everybody has to put up solar just those that: "The legal requirement for solar installations will be activated when more than 20% of roof area is renovated, when heating systems are replaced or when an addition is planned. "
Meaning people with a low income in general rent a house, meaning their landlord has to pay for it. Homeowners who want to renovate or upsize their home will probably ask for a second mortgage or have money enough to spend.
I don't have exact numbers but I guess that maybe 2% - 5% of the homeowner a year will make large enough adjustments to their home, to be required to add solar as well. I think this law could be a good example for the rest of germany and europe.

Trust me, Curalex, I read that before I posted.
I reread the the whole thing to make sure these people truly weren't required. I know the government isn't asking everyone to just put them up by a certain date but even if I WANTED to put in a new roof, I don't think I should be told by my government that I HAVE to use solar.
I'm all for solar by all means but I think requiring people to use their own money for something the government REQUIRES (not wants) them to do is a bad idea.
In any case, say the whole roof caves in, no matter who owns the house....SOME private citizen has to take money out of THEIR pocket because THEIR GOVERNMENT REQUIRES solar power.

Like I said in my earlier post,the subsidy should be increased or the government should pay for it.

I wish more places would start doing this. I know people will say Solar isn't the answer but at least they are trying to do something.

Tthe subsidies for purchasing and installing solar panels in Germany are far more significant at that national level than what is offered by the city of Marburg.

Also, each person on the national program receives 50 cents for each kw/hr generated and when they buy it back from the grid they only pay at a rate of 20 cents, therefore almost always making a profit each month

While I am not crazy about the government telling me what to do, I think this might be the exception that I would be willing to suck up because of the global impact this will cause.

You also have to take into consideration that at some point the savings each individual home will incur will pay for the initial upfront costs and afterwards they will be making small profits so long as they have solar panels.

Besides the Germans are much more progressive than many other countries and are willing to unite in change for the benefit of the country.

The fact that this city is making this stance is exactly what the planet needs. We need to see a whole city convert to prove or disprove the feasibility of solar power. This should be done before every home on the planet starts slapping on solar panels.

Again, I refer you to the website, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/program.html and watch the videos online "Saved by the Sun", watch the entire video about solar power and there is also a segment on what Germany is doing as a country.

Sadly, because this is so massively subsidized, it does little to demonstrate any truly feasible conversion to solar.

Some things that should NEVER be forgotten about flat-panel PV solar.
- It only provides 5-7 hrs of energy a day.
- Even in the Southwest of the U.S.; it only produces about 6 out of 7 days averaged throughout the year.

The initiative is commendable though with most government policies it should not be compulsive neither pinching the pocket otherwise it would just be like creating a vehicle without passengers.

We have nothing but the Federal government tax credit in Alabama, and our elected representatives do not have renewables on their radar screen. We share the planet and the effects of global warming and have our share of pollution problems in Alabama, but they don't want to be bothered with being part of the solution. So much easier to be part of the problem. It'd be so easy to look at what other states are doing and model a program after one of theirs.

Congratulations to the Marburg council for having the courage to stand up for something worthwhile!

This is a great step.
I don't think I would mind, as a homeowner, the requirement to use me own money, but only on the following condition: I would like to see a commitment from the town to invest a comparable amount of money on energy storage, like massive hydrogen production and storage or large banks of grid-connected batteries. This would silence all the critics who talk about how we can't use solar at night or on cloudy days or about how we still need gas for vehicles.
In the meantime, remember that this town is grid-connected to a lot of other towns, and that electric demand peeks during the day and in summer. So as long as solar remains a minor component of the mix on the grid as a whole, net-metered systems actually help reduce fluctuations in the amount of power we need fossil-fuel plants to generate, which increases overall efficiency of power generation, leading to reduced waste.

Scott,

Sadly, unless solar is subsidized, it will never or only slowly achieve the per unit cost efficiencies necessary to provide positive cash returns per se.

I also note in general that governement requires us to do a lot of things for the benefit of the whole society -- vaccinations, support building infrastructure, etc. Surely, the advocacy of energy options that increase national securities and protect our climate and economies of growth is one thing all sides -- conservative, liberal, ecoactivist and libertarian -- can support.

I am a left wing European who is not paranoid about big government, but I do not think this is the way to go. Solar thermal is a good technology, but often not the best technology. When dealing with old houses mostly the biggest "bang for the buck" is obtained by proper insulation. It would be better to require a minimum energy efficiency for buildings. The owner is than free to choose the best technology to get to this.

I'm a little late joining the discussion but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in.

As far as the "have to do it" argument, Courtney, if you have done work on your house before you probably are aware of residential building codes, which is in essence a list of things you HAVE to do when you renovate, build, etc. The codes are there for the general public safety and welfare and being green I think is most certainly an extension of that. Ifyou look at this as just another element Marburg is adding to their building codes then it might seem more reasonable.

For Pieter, while insulation will help with the heating energy costs, it won't power your coffee pot, my impression is that the mayor is going for overall energy, not just heating costs.

I agree however that they seem to be limiting in the type of alternative power that can be used, but it seems that for a city like Marburg, solar is the only truly available means that works for them. Go Marburg!

www.txspc.com

In several cities in Texas they pay $4.50 per watt to install solar.

Here in Austin a $21,000 system is $8,000 out of pocket until you take the tax credit of $2000 bringing system costs down to $6,000 for a 3kW system.

This pays itself off in 4-5 years.

Subsidies for SOLAR!!! Contact your Representatives!

www.txspc.com

you are the cool peoplesandi wish you send me some pictures pease.

I just wanted to say that I came here after reading the NY Times version of this story and they were incredibly vague. They make it sound like the city is requiring PV, which most know is extremely expensive, and that would be completely unfair. Maybe the NY Times correspondent is unclear on the differences between PV and solar thermal, or perhaps the author set out to subtly spin the issue until the ordinance sounded impetuous and heavy-handed. The details presented here make it seem like anything but.