Solar Power Play 58
dpilgrim writes "While American power companies continue to chase vanishing oil reserves, the Japanese are once again a step ahead in innovation. Reuters is carrying this story about Sharp's new manucfacturing plant in the U.S. Sharp will begin manufacturing solar batteries stateside, and expects more than half its solar battery sales to be in the U.S. by 2004. Looks like a good use for that south-facing hillside on my property."
All right! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:All right! (Score:2)
I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Lower prices? (Score:2)
Re:Lower prices? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the article said that it cost 8-9k to set up a solar unitThey don't specify what they mean by unit, but I guarantee, if you want to go even partway off the grid, it's going to run you more than 8-9k.
Re:Lower prices? (Score:2)
Re:Lower prices? (Score:2)
Re:Lower prices? (Score:4, Informative)
Without the tax incentives, it would be hard to see a 10-year simple payback, unless there are significant costs associated with hooking up to the power grid (namely distance).
Compared to a 3kW diesel generator... it has an ROI. Compared to $0.10/kWh... not yet!
Re:Lower prices? (Score:1)
Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:1)
(Yeah - the big news here is "Sharp thinks growing U.S. solar cell demand makes it worth opening a local factory that'll employ a few dozen workers".)
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
California could spends the $$$ it's getting back from energy companies (that robbed it blind during Enron's heyday) to pave the Mojave Desert with solar cells
Do you have any idea what effect shifting the albedo of that big a chunk of the earth's surface would have on climate patterns?
Neither do I -- but it would almost certainly make the effect of all the carbon-based emissions in human history pale by comparison...
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:1)
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Also true. :-)
I'm just amused how many people assume that solar power (or wind power, for that matter) are without other effects. What seems like `free' power when used to power a single house or a small complex becomes quite different when used in scale.
After all, the energy being converted to electricity comes from somewhere -- and while the effect of coverting matter such as oil or uranium to energy is necessarily quite local, the effect of taking that energy out of the environment is less clear...
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Taking it out of the environment? What do you mean? It all ends up as heat. Installed on roof-tops I can't think of any change this would cause, except decreasing regional over-heating caused by asphalt roofs. Installed in a desert, I expect the impact would be even smaller.
Also keep in mind that these devices aren't terribly efficient (and don't need to be -- they just need to be cheap), so most of it's going directly to heat, anyway, just like it did before.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Actually, think about what you're saying -- suppose we indeed cover the desert with photoelectric panels, thus absorbing massive amounts of energy which would previously have been taken up by the sand, and shunting that energy off to power a city or two.
Well, night comes, and that power is no longer being reradiated into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is now substantially cooler in the region, weather patterns change, and the climate shifts.
The same goes for a city -- an asphalt roof may absorb and radiate at different rates than a rock or a stretch of sand, but the difference is nothing compared to a device which absorbs and does not re-radiate.
A similar pattern occurs with wind power, by the way -- a wind farm of sufficient size can cause drastic changes in regional wind patterns.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Large cities already make large changes to the weather. This is known and well documented [nasa.gov]. As a result of the linked study, Atlanta has doubled efforts to increase greenery in the city limits to mitigate the climate effect and the city's image as "Hotlanta." The problem is that asphalt absorbs a LOT more heat and light than natural greenery or sand. That's why it's black, oddly enough.
Furthermore, solar panels aren't all-consuming one-way doors of solar energy. Solar panels only get 5-20% efficiency. The rest of that is reflected or reradiated as heat. No matter how many solar panels you blanketed city rooftops with, it wouldn't keep urban areas from being a stronger source of heat than surrounding areas.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:1)
Dont underestimate the area urban areas occupy. According to the numbers I have it's between 35% (U.S.), 45% (West and Middle Europe) and up to 95% in some small city states (Monaco, San Marino, Singapur), if you look at industrialized states. Urban area doesn't necessarily mean it's within the boundary of a city. A city has parks and meadows (so it's not all urban area), but on the other hand large shopping malls and industrial areas outside of the town are urbanized too.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Do you see why the statistic you post is deceptive? It's certainly true that `95%' of Singapore or Monaco is urban, but that's because these nations borders are the borders of their city -- both of these nations are truly tiny.
More generally, if all the world's population were relocated to the United States, the population density would be no greater than the current population density of Manhattan -- and the US is a pretty small portion of the Earth's surface.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
I suspect it would not be so different. That it re-radiates less of what it absorbs might be offset by the fact that it absorbs more.
That doesn't make any sense actually -- there's a finite amount of solar energy hitting any given point on the earth's surface, which means if you absorb more you are also changing the local environment. More generally, however, the fact remains that some 20% of the energy striking a solar panel is converted to electricity and shunted off to a nearby (or distant) city. That's energy which would have been in the local environemnt which has been removed.
That's nothing compared to what a bunch of office buildings would do.
There's not a city on earth that's more than a fraction of the size of the Mojave desert. Nor is it clear to me that the difference between pavement and sand is even close to the difference between either and a photovoltaic cell.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Real world. Not foolishness.
Just to give you a starting point, try comparing the california wind farms to the enormous amounts of heated water let out into rivers at even test and research reactors.
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
What you miss is that there haven't been any solar farms of even close to the scale discussed in this thread constructed. Anywhere.
However, it's trivial to extrapolate the known effects of solar farms that have been set up, and it's also useful to keep in minds the basic laws of thermodynamics -- in other words, are you seriously suggesting that taking out about 20% (the current efficiency of solar cells, though see yesterday's story on newer, more efficient cells) of the solar energy hitting an areas the size of the Mojave Desert would not have such an effect? Really?
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
First of all, NOBODY literally proposed laying PV over the entirety of the Mojave. But evidently you feel the need to get snitty. So be it.
Listen, Aristotle, it is nothing even resembling "trivial". The relevant thermodymamics are NOT 20% withdrawn versus nothing withdrawn. That, as something like twenty posters on this thread have already explained, starts from the utterly fallacious assumption that otherwise the energy would be "perfectly" and instantly distributed and that only by adding the EEEEVIIL photovoltaics would any redistribution take place.
You wanna get salty? Yeah. It would have an effect. Again as others have pointed out, it would actually be somewhat similar to what would happen if the same area was to be successfully planted and irrigated, a thing that would, in fact be highly desirable. It would cut down on daytime peaks (and, btw, on heat loss to reflection back into space) and provide a helpful insulating "second skin" that would even things out more at night and, in fact, also result in significant condensation out of the air, that could then be put into the ground and would certainly promote plant growth and AGAIN be considered a serious gain.
Have you ever dealt with metal frames or other equipment in the desert? That gives you a good starting point. Shade underneath, some heat absorption, leveling of temperature, moderation of winds. You know, the stuff that settlers to an area reliably try desperately hard to induce.
Now back when I was sitting through the environmental impact hearings that Atlantic Richfield did for their desert region solar installations way back in, was it '78? I was under the impression that the impact of such systems was quite well analyzed and comprehensively, as I have briefly explained above, desirable. Contrary to what you are asserting.
Negative impacts? Sure. The glare (I'm not kidding about this) does no favors at all to predator birds or, for that matter, pilots. There are some others, but the "self-evident" stuff you claim is just so much hogwash. (But what would I know? I only spoke then with biologists with expertise in desert biomes, one of whom went on to become a state regulator.)
(BTW, I'll send a six-pack of brew of choice to the person who tracks down those EIS hearings and finds out what questions I asked of ARCO.)
Yet again, I ask, where are your FACTS? Give me actual cases of photovoltaic installations, active or passive, causing adverse effects on surrounding areas. Power generation *always* involves conversion of energy. Duh! And the amount of thermal impact is primarily proportional to the power generated, not the geographical distribution of the load. This is why the early efforts to "help" by building taller smokestacks and longer effluent pipes are now seen to have been so destructive.
Come back when you have real world data. The rest of us on this thread have made it eminently clear that we do. Pony up or fold.
Frankly, no matter what you respond though, I won't be posting again tonight as I have to prepare for the conference on technological responses to and impacts upon global warming that I am attending tomorrow.
Rustin
Re:Send the Sales VP to California! (Score:2)
Well and good, except that even with the best photovoltaic technology projected to be available within the foreseeable future, you would need to convert the whole Mojave desert -- and a lot more -- to make a dent in the power needs of the state of California (which is where this discussion began). Indeed, given that there is a specific and finite amount of solar energy hitting the Earth's surface, it is unlikely that terrestrial solar arrays will ever be particularly interesting as an energy source -- do the math.
Nor is the vegetation comparison particularly interesting -- irrigating and planting the whole Mojave would indeed have a massive impact, and even so, photosynthesis is a lot less than 20% efficient.
Solar Power discussion. (Score:1)
And all it takes to go that few million miles is the correct initial thrust, because the vacuum of space will not slow down an object that has been started on the correct path.
So why can't we send a traditional power plant out into orbit close to the sun, to collect power and somehow transfer it back to us. I don't know how that transfer would work.
Superconductive energy storage [wspc.com] may be promising, but I can't find a better link. If a superconductor has no resistance, then you lose no power over it, and you can store charge in a ring. (I know this as a fact -- early demonstrations of superconductivity included this very use). Can you store an arbitrarily large amount of charge in this way?
It should be fairly easy for a "battery" of a few hundred pounds to lift off of the orbiting power plant (via rocket) and bring back to us a huge amount of energy. It can use some of its energy to maintain enough cooling for superconductivity.
Are there other ways to "concentrate" energy at the point of the orbiting solar plant? Higher frequency electromagnetic waves have more power than lower frequencies, so can't we somehow 'step up' the frequencies to the point that we can direct a single ray of very powerful electromagnetic waves at a fairly concentrated area surrounding the Earth? Then the Earth basks in, say, gamma rays that are now much more powerful than the usual cosmic gamma rays, and perhaps can be re-harnessed...
Either way it seems counterproductive to make local power plants, when we have a fusion power plant a million times the size of the Earth just spitting energy out, and it's only separated from us by empty space.
What gives?
[1] Between 91,400,000 and 94,400,000 miles, depending on the time of year.
[2] Having a volume that is in fact larger than Earth's by a factor of 1,295,000.
Re:Solar Power discussion. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Energy already travels from the sun to earth at the speed of light. You're not going to get it here any faster. Electromagnetic radiation travels through space without loss (save for interference from objects and gravity fields).
3) What if the beam of highly concentrated energy misses the near-earth target?
4) Where are you going to PUT the near-earth target?
5) Everything we use for energy today exists because of the sun (except for nuclear, anyways, but that's leftovers from some other star), so basically we're running on locally stored solar energy...
=Smidge=
Re:Solar Power discussion. (Score:2)
My point wasn't to get it here faster. The point is to get it while it's less dissipated. If we had no sun near us, but only stars, you could use the same argument: Why would you want to travel to a star that's a hundred light-years away to collect energy? Energy from there already travels at the speed of light....
Yes, it travels at the speed of light, but it also radiates outward in a sphere, and by the time it hits us, it's very dissipated. If you can collect some of it while the "sphere of radiating-outward" is still fairly small (e.g. ten miles, one hundred miles, one thousand miles, or one million miles from the sun), then the same AREA of solar-collection is now worth much much more.
If I could choose to power my house from a solar cell on my roof or from a solar cell that's half-way between the Earth and the sun, I would choose to have my house powered by the latter. The question is, how do you get the considerably larger amount of electricity that you can harness while closer to the sun to OVER here.
If we could "transport" electricity free of charge, then we'd be stupid to build local power plants, instead of going to the sun, collecting a large-ass amount of electricity (hell, even while FALLING INTO IT, eventually disintegrating), and all the while transport that electricity instantly to Earth, it would save us a lot.
Question is, how do we get it from there to here?
So you see, there are two real questions.
1. Can we send something to the sun that will collect an insane amount of electricity in a brief period of time.
2. Can we store an insanely large amount of electricity in a small package, and can we get it back to Earth and use the energy from it.
If we can do 1 and 2, then it doesn't matter if the program costs $100,000,000,000, because we can stop producing power, stop buying oil, etc.
With an arbitrary amount of energy at our disposal, we can use electrolysis of water (a fairly inefficient system), to get hydrogen. We'd have clean, cheap power for everyone. Is all the oil the world uses for the next fifty years worth one hundred billion dollars?
If so, then it's not a question of "how much" will (1) and (2) cost, but merely "is it possible."
I don't know if it's possible.
I was looking for a physicist's answer of whether it is.
Re:Solar Power discussion. (Score:2)
I think one could even do this over cropland or grazing land.
The initial cost is high, but the per watt cost is only a few times what is needs to be to be ecconomical in the long run. If we ever serously take into account the environmental costs of fossil fuel, some of these "expensive" options might not be so expensive.
Step in the right direction, but... (Score:4, Informative)
You get about 100 watts of solar radiation per square foot (perpendicular to the sun's rays). Current commercial PV cells are, at best, 15% efficient.. so now you have 15 watts of electricity per square foot.
A conventional powerplants generate roughly 500-1000 Megawatts each. Doing the math, you'ld need well over 32 million square feet of collection area to match that... roughly 765 acres of active surface. PV arrays can't be packed together either, because they would cast shadows on eachother... so the actual real-estate required would be 4 or 5 times that!
Even if the PV cells were *free*, the cost of installation, service, and the land itself would be astronomical! There's no way a solar farm could pay for itself.
Nobody is going to stop burning coal and oil anytime soon (unless they run out!)
Not to say PV cells don't have their uses, of course. Cheap PV panels can certaintly help ease the energy budget!
=Smidge=
Re:Step in the right direction, but... (Score:1)
You're somewhat correct. Solar power is economical if you don't already have utility service. In this situation, it is much cheaper to conserve than to generate more. A house can be run with about 7KW peak output. This is comparable to other types of installations in terms of TCO.
However, at the utility scale, PV just doesn't hold a candle to the cheapest form of energy production. Discounting the subsidies given to coal production, wind power is the cheapest way to produce power at the utility scale.
Re:Step in the right direction, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, cheap PV would be financially attractive to the home owner. You don't need dedicated land except for high density housing and industrial demands. The main blocking issue for roof-top PV is not efficiency, but cost. We can get about 15% efficiency, but only at great cost. Very cheap, very low efficiency PV is currently running around 1% efficient. Some claim you need about 5% to be viable. I think this is high, at least for some markets. 3% could power a California home (mild climate) if demand-side leaks have been fixed.
It seems likely that the low-end designs will improve efficiency before the high-efficiency designs can bring their manufacturing costs down significantly.
Re:Step in the right direction, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
This approach would work well in sunny climes like California, but the key is allowing the PV cells to plug directly into the grid. i.e: when the PV cells are producing more power than the home needs, they put power into the grid, when the home needs more power than the PV cells can provide, it sucks some off of the grid. The utility could then meter all of this and give people discounts on their electricity bill based on how much they contributed into the grid. With cheap PV cells this could become a reality, and there is an enourmous amount of area on rooftops in cities. Though the power provided by such a system would not really add up to much in the winter, it could make a BIG dent in power consumption in the winter.
capital cost (Score:2)
Re:capital cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's one of many ways to get it to be less costly, building your home, do two things, make it superinsulated,do some research on how to be more efficient in heating and cooling, save a buncha cash there monthly, and site it on land that is far away from utilities. All it needs to be is one mile away, usually enough to drop the per acre cost tremendously. In most cases the cheaper cost of the land will be reduced enough to make it a break even with closer in land when you add in the solar or whatever hybrid system you want. I'm a fan of the hybrid systems BTW whenever applicable.
We live on solar, works great, the best part is it's paid off, and works no matter what happens in the energy markets or with political shenanigans or like wars in the mideast whatnot., etc. No surprises. You can't get that with an electrico account, you are on a month to month, no guarantees it won't cost ten times as much ten years from now. During 2000 people all over the country saw their bills double, just like that, and they had to eat it then and ever since. No one would put up with that on their car note or house note, but for some reason they will put up with it when it comes to delivered electricity or city gas. It's a weird way to buy something if ya ask me, but to each their own, I did it for decades, glad I don't anymore, wish I had done this sooner. I don't like "renting" many things, and to me my energy if possible I want to own. Same as computers, wish I had bought my first one sooner. I'm not aware of any place joe residential home owner can get a ten year price guarantee carved in stone contract on delivered grid juice. If there is anyplace that offers such a contract I'd like to see it.
Solar and battery bank storage is a heckuva nifty UPS as well. Try days (maybe) of storage, even with little sun, that is still clean, instead of 15 minutes to an hour with a typical ups unit.
The other point on solar(or wind, hydro, steam unit, etc) is it doesn't in any manner require you to be either/or, this I notice is some sort of fantasy I read detractors say, that you have to be "OR" with this, you can have BOTH normal grid provided and solar if you choose. You can start small, work your way up as your interest and finances dictate if you want to go that route. You can technically start at one grand and do it. One grand is enough for a big panel or two, a charge controller, some batts and a small inverter. That's just an example. Just having enough for say one commonly used circuit in your home, say as the power and UPS unit, to run your home computer off of, is nifty.
With that said I'm unsure what they mean by a "solar battery" in the article. PV's are more correctly identified as a "generator" by function. Your battery storage is a separate deal, they are called "batteries". Maybe they are talking about those little combo cellphone batt/pv panel units. I don't know.
Journalists, gotta love 'em..... they try hard, forced to be tech experts in everything to write about it for general consumption, wind up being experts in not about much.
Re:capital cost (Score:2)
"new"?
"untested"?
How could PV be considered either? This stuff has been around and in reliable use since the Fifties.
Hate to break to ya, son (no, I don't) but over a dozen companies out there are gearing up to make photovoltaic solar-powered roof shingles [google.com] and they aren't doing it for the good of humanity either. Just plain old profit.
Facts, folks. Don't waste our time with ignorant speculation. Start by getting FACTS.
Rustin
Economic incentives do work... (Score:2)
Any chance of our tax $$ promoting solar power--providing long-range and short-range benefits, helping us break our dependence on fossil fuels?
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:2)
Furthermore, subsidies for solar power at this point would be the wrong way to use them. You should use subsidies to encourage the purchase or use of a technology (or product) that is ready for bigtime: the only reason it costs more is because not enough people are buying it. And the only reason people aren't buying it is that it costs too much. Subsidies get around the chicken and the egg by, well, forcing people to buy something they normally wouldn't. With Uncle Sam (aka, you) paying to dilute the price, the sticker comes down, which tricks people into thinking the product costs less than it does. They start buying, and eventually the price naturally comes down and the subsidies are discontinued.
Subsidies for something so unproven (it's doubtful solar power will work on anywhere near a large scale at this point) and in its early stages of development (for your stated purpose of breaking our dependance on fossil fuels) would only serve to waste money and stifle innovation.
I do support alternative energy sources, by the way. But I'm also firmly against the government taking away my money unless it has a damn good reason to do so. Supporting preliminary research is not a damn good reason; it's a pretty damn poor one.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:3, Insightful)
How else is preliminary research funded? Practically every new technology of the last century, from the food you eat to the computers you use, has been developed with public funding. Very few private organizations have enough of a cash buffer to fund these developments that have clear long-term economic advantages.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:2)
I disagree.
Public funding of research has supported, for example, polio vaccine and improved survival of cancer. Private funding of research has produced, for example, Viagra and multiple studies that claim smoking isn't bad for you.
Private funding of basic research means duplication of effort, secrecy instead of dissemination of knowledge, and a high monopoly price on the fruits of that research. And is this high monopoly price what you think my tax dollars should subsidize? I doubt that course would save either of us money.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:2)
Incidentally, you don't mention the many hundreds of idiotic, redundant, and wildly unsuccessful projects the government continually funds. For every polio vaccine, how many millions of dollars are wasted on things that don't ultimately benefit mankind?
I wouldn't object much if the government were to subsidize research with the money it already has. But there's no way in hell I'm going to approve a tax hike for anything an insubstantial as this. And governments are like Windows: cruft doesn't get taken out, it only gets added. The chances of the government cutting some do-nothing worthless program that wastes millions of dollars are exactly zero.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:1)
What amazing psychic powers. From my statement that I thought basic research was a good use of government money, you were able to deduce my secret intentions:
1) That there should be an immediate new tax to take money from your wallet to finance this
and 2) That the government should then spend this money on whatever it wants.
It's a fair cop. That's exactly what I meant. What psychic powers! I don't dare to debate you further.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:1)
I also doubt very much that the money would be spent on anything useful, no matter what the government says. Oh, I'm sure some of it would; but a lot of it would find its way to welfare, or the Pentagon.
I'm sorry about my feelings, and I'll ditch my point bonus for this (and any further) replies. But the way most /.'ers feel about MS, that's how I sometimes feel about the government.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:1)
A lot of basic research is funded, right now, by government--it's a tiny fraction of what our taxes pay for. You are right that most research doesn't produce anything as great as polio vaccine. Does the cost to benefit ratio of research make it a good investment for our taxes? That depends on your estimate of the costs, the benefits, and the other stuff we could do with our money.
I can understand your reluctance to pay extra taxes for a speculative "investment" like solar power. I am probably too quick to suggest that government could fund this or that project I think of as an "investment." Let's not run for President and VP together! But let's be friendly when we argue on /.
Re:Economic incentives do work... (Score:2)
I would argue that basic research is a pretty decent thing for the government to support. Now if we want to talk about eliminiating the subsidies and incentives being paid to big agribusiness, or the oil and gas industries...
I think that much of the "alternative energy" proponents would be more than happy to compete on a completely even playing field. If the entrenched energy producers had to pay for all of the costs of exploration, research and development, environmental degredation, health effects, etc. it would be very clear that the "alternatives" are pretty dam cheap.
Sharp's investment (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a little stunned. With that PUNY amount of money they can do that? It seems to me like everyone else must be completely oblivious to that market.
Re:Sharp's investment (Score:2)
tripe (Score:3, Insightful)
The environmental cost of producing (and later
discarding) rechargable batteries and solar cells
is vastly larger than the collateral costs of
producing power centrally, particularly if
the central production is nuclear. And there is
almost no petroleum-based utility electric in
the U.S.
Re:tripe (Score:2)
I'd look up some numbers for you but i'm tired and going to bed.
Re:tripe (Score:1)
Of course, this means that the easiest way to adjust to an oil shortage has now been used.
Most new generation in the US in the last 10 years is gas-fired. Natural gas is quickly reaching the end of the line in the US; shortages will appear within the next 1-5 years.
Hence the energy policy of coal and nuclear..
But the points about solar cells not giving a net energy are incorrect; they are based on 1970s calculations, IIRC. Solar installations should be mandated for new housing - costs are reduced if you are already building a roof.
Re:tripe (Score:3, Informative)
That just is not true. Lead acid batteries are completely recycleable and most places in the USA REQUIRE them to be recycled when disposed of.
Solar panels are typically guaranteed for 20-30 years, and generally are productive for much beyond that. I have seen no evidence to indicate there is any particularly probelms with disposal afterwards.
Home Power Magazine [homepower.com] has some references to studies on teh energy, environmental, and financial aspects of solar panel production showing that these types of statements, while worth investigating, are not significant problems.
Now as for me, I am pretty pro-nuke, but distributed solar is certainly a good way to go. Of course the best choice would be to not waste the energy in the first place - you know, install some compact flourescent and LED lights around the house, and turn down the AC once in a while...
This is news! (Score:1)
I know Slashdot users have their political leanings, but those sentiments belong in the comments, not in the story. Shouldn't news be reported more bojectively?
OK, Here: (Score:2)
In a recent television interview that I saw, Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Hydrogen Economy", was asked what his view was about the direction United States was taking versus the European Union on renewable energy use.
He said that United States continues to move in the direction of higher non-renewable energy use (as evidenced by the increasing popularity of SUV's and the current president's agenda for oil drilling in Alaska), while the European Union has set a goal to attain, by 2010, a minimum penetration of 12% of renewable energy sources.
"In this regard", he went on to say, "it appears as if the New World is becoming the Old World and the Old World is becoming the New World."
Words to think about.