"At the end of the day, electricity generated in Italy costs 60% more than the European average, twice as much as in France and three times as much as in Sweden. As the IEA points out, Italy burns as much fuel oil in a year to make electricity as India does in a year and a half, or 551 days, to be precise. And as much gas as all of Latin America in 439 days. Needless to say, we are the most oil-dependent country in Europe, even though natural gas now covers half of the sector requirement. In 2005 alone, Italy’s power stations consumed about six and a half million tons of oil, the equivalent of thirty-two supertankers like the Exxon Valdez, which sank years ago off Alaska, provoking an environmental disaster. That’s six times as much as Germany or France, and twelve times more than the United Kingdom."
That's interesting. Well I can suppose that's because Italian are very anti-progressive and since they voted no against nuclear (1986) there was not so much choice rather than fuel oil. Gas was recently introduced (I think in the end of the 80's) but it is also used for home heating and cooking. Another pro of oil is that it can be stored, while gas comes through gasducts (pipes) so it its supplyis more unreliable and subject to political streams (especially with Russia and eastern countries). Oil can be bought in advance for a certain price, while gas is usually bought now and then according to the market price. In my power plant we have the problem of not having enough gas to burn and at the same problem we cannot use fuel oil only because of environmental limits we have to obey. Having not enough gas is due to the fact that the gasducts have a limited flow and its request keeps increasing.
Posts: 1249 | Location (City & State): Pavia (PV) - north Italy | Registered: 24 September 2005
You are right, oil is easily stored. Wind, gas, solar are not. The best people can do is to use what is being generated and store the rest into high-capacity battery (only useful for small demand).
There is no easy choice, every solution has an environmental side effect. However, I think it should star with the behavior of the businesses and people to conserve energy.
Advancement in LED (light emitting diode) today can produce powerful lightbulbs (or array of small LED) cheaply and in various colors. Of course, they probably don't have the same nice lighting effect in the ambient as a regular bulb. However, if enough buildings, shops and streets are lit with LED, it could drastically reduce the power consumption.
One thing that wasn't discussed in the article was solar energy. Solar energy has proven to be expensive and will probably never replace the other methods of generating electricity. However, southern Italy is sunny enough that they can try to build solar panels into the roofs. I say, use the money they confiscated from the mafia, camorra, and n'drangheta to fund such initiative. Also, develop some type of incentive for builders to incorporate more green design.
I often walk pass some banks and the lights and computers are on all night even no one is there.
Posts: 152 | Location (City & State): Napoli | Registered: 26 December 2004
Solar is not the same as photovoltaic, be careful. Anyway photovoltaic panels requires maintenance, while being a user does not (once you have your electrical wires in the house). Plus, nobody tells you that every 12-15 years they have to be regenerated, that you need to have an electrical plant "a norma" and so on. I tried a simulation on Enel's website and I found out that putting photovoltaic panels would cost me about 15.000 euros (price of a car) and the payback is 12 years....just like the life of the panels!
Posts: 1249 | Location (City & State): Pavia (PV) - north Italy | Registered: 24 September 2005
What is the EU planning to replace oil with when the oil runs out? The article makes it sound like Italy isn't thinking that far ahead (similar to the US attitude). Today's energy price increases foreshadow future shortages, "fueled" by decreasing supply and increasing demand (the rise of China and India, etc). Now is the time to make the transition to alternative energy, not when oil and gas supplies run dry.
I found out that putting photovoltaic panels would cost me about 15.000 euros (price of a car) and the payback is 12 years....just like the life of the panels!
Even that is much better than the payback period of a car.
quote: Originally posted by linaluz: Even that is much better than the payback period of a car. Smiler
By payback period, we mean the time it takes for savings in your electric bill to equal the cost of the photovoltaic panels.
[quote]quote:
Yes, of course, I realize that (don´t know any other definition of payback period). I was just(lightly) making the point (or trying to) that we don´t only make purchases based on payback periods. Purchases such as cars are usually made without considering payback periods, which could be calculated by comparing their total lifetime costs to that of alternatives, ie. using public transit, bicycling, walking and the odd taxi as necessary. I´m sure that in most cases the car will never come out ahead. But people buy cars for other reasons, eg. perceived freedom, convenience, status. etc.
So when deciding on ¨environmental¨purchases such as PV panels, or solar hot water systems, , its interesting that people often don´t include other factors, such as, for example, feeling virtuous for not polluting or contributing to climate change when they turn on a light or have a shower, or freedom from the electrical grid or gas company, and not having to worry if there is a black-out or a gas shortage, or even viewing these technologies as a status symbol.
Of course in an ideal world, the less environmentally damaging technologies would be much less expensive, but until the costs of CO2 emissions and localized air pollution, (and wars in Iraq etc.) are internalized into the costs of using fossil fuels, and and appropriate incentives are given to alternative technologies (as has been done in other countries, for example for solar hot water systems), then individuals may have to make some decisions that are not only based on payback periods.
Sorry to state what I think is the obvious, but if France is full of Nuclear power plants then Italy really isn't protecting itself from a possible disaster since France is very close! So it would seem smarter for Italy to build Nuclear power plants itself than buy from France... sorry, but Nuclear power is quite safe and is better for the environment if all goes well (and it usually does).
France is actually well advanced into the technology, and as a resident up to now, I can tell you that my electric bills would bring tears to the eyes of those in Italy (+/- 50€ every other month,this using a clothes dryer at least once a week if not twice). Italians were spooked by the old Chernobyl incident years ago, and see the handwriting on the wall for rampant corruption with dire consequences down the road. But as a viable alternative, it really is a solution to be looked at.
Posts: 946 | Location (City & State): From Lille to Torino | Registered: 12 January 2008
While I do work in the energy field, I´m not up on the latest EU energy strategy or policies, but from anything I read the EU is taking a multifaceted approach to increase its use of renewable energy and reduce dependency on oil.
I read about all kinds of programs and policies promoting renewable energy, from wind, to solar, to biofuels (especially from waste), as well as promoting energy efficiency. For example, it was mentioned in another thread how quickly the installed capacity of wind energy has been increasing in Europe in the past few years. In many countries there are regulations(eg. Spain) that legislate the use of solar water heating and a certain level of energy efficiency in new building construction. In Germany they are building Passive houses that are built so efficiently that they do not need a heating system. I´m not going to say the the EU is doing enough to reduce oil dependency and develop alternatives, but they definitely are a lot more proactive than Canada or the US.
I don't understand the difference between PV and solar. I'd love to have solar panels, but are they really so expensive. That said, 12 years, is a long time, but at least they do pay back in that time (if I understood correctly).
When I went to Greece they had solar panels there and they worked really well - for heating the water.
PV is short for photovoltaic. PV panels generate electricity from solar energy, whereas solar hot water systems use the sun´s energy to heat water. Unfortunately both systems often end up being simply called solar panels which is why there is often confusion. Both are solar energy technologies though.
The number of solar hot water systems in Greece is incredible. Even when I was there 15 years ago, it seemed like every second hotel had solar hot water systems (and I agree they work wonderfully - I always had a nice, hot /(and guilt-free) shower). But that is because beginning in the 80´s the Greek government started an incentive program to promote solar hot water, and as you can see it has been a success. Apparently it was modelled after a similar Israeli program that started in the ´70s, another country that has widespread use of solar hot water panels.
But one of those mysteries of life is why other countries, like Italy, that have minimum oil and gas reserves, but plenty of sunshine, didn´t followed suit. Now, can someone explain that one to me.
Originally posted by Pola: Anyway photovoltaic panels requires maintenance, while being a user does not (once you have your electrical wires in the house). Plus, nobody tells you that every 12-15 years they have to be regenerated, that you need to have an electrical plant "a norma" and so on. I tried a simulation on Enel's website and I found out that putting photovoltaic panels would cost me about 15.000 euros (price of a car) and the payback is 12 years....just like the life of the panels!
Photovoltaic systems require very little maintenance; usually just a twice yearly cleaning of the glass surface (with warm water and a mild soap if needed) to get the dust off of them.
The normal lifespan of most PV systems is 20-25 years, not 12-15 years. If the manufacturer doesn't guarantee them for at least 20 yrs look for a different brand because this is the industry standard. There is no need to "regenerate" them, whatever that is supposed to mean.... The electrical plant "a norma"? Are you talking about the inverter? This is used to turn the DC into AC and feed it into your electrical panel and then what you don't use back into the grid. This is standard as well, and unless you want to buy €10,000 worth of batteries, then you'll need it.
The payback period depends on how much electricity you use and what the expected rates you'll be paying in the future are (as well as the feed in tariff the electrical company offers). In California, the typical payback period is 7-10 yrs and is similar in Germany too.
Again, and most importantly, the panels are guaranteed to generate around 90% of the rated wattage for at least 20 years. If they aren't, then buy ones that are. The one caveat is the inverter, which are usually only guaranteed for 5-10 yrs, though they make up a relatively minor part of the cost of the system (maybe 10%).
Don't discount the long term benefits of a system. After the system is paid off, the electricity is free! And these payback analysis are using pretty conservative assumptions about the future electricity prices and in reality the prices will probably go up faster than they think. Hence, your system will pay for itself more quickly....
How, you might ask, do I know this?
For one, I am a state certified general electrician and have been in the trade for going on 15 years now. Two, I worked as the electrician for a solar (PV) company in California before moving to Germany last year. Lastly, my brother works as an engineer for one of big global PV players and we constantly talk shop. In fact, his company bought a large PV company in Italy last winter to get into the market there (they specialize in large installations, i.e.; solar farms).
I've seen a lot more awareness and use (particularly on new build) of solar panels, all types, here in Italy. I believe there are financial incentives by way of tax reliefs (biomass as well) and that feed-in tariffs are being introduced. Payback periods are coming down all the time.
One thing on savings that hasn't been mentioned is that with PV people become much more aware of their usage and cut back on unnecessary consumption.
I think the Italian fear of nuclear is well-justified. Who would they trust to run it without dumping the waste in their nearest illegal dump?
Posts: 719 | Location (City & State): Valle d'Aosta | Registered: 24 November 2005
Originally posted by suefischio: I think the Italian fear of nuclear is well-justified. Who would they trust to run it without dumping the waste in their nearest illegal dump?
Good point! And we thought dioxin in the mozzarella was bad....
The cooling water isn't the problem so much as the radioactive waste. You can store it (see Yucca Mtn controversy) or reprocess it (which still leaves a large quantity of radioactive waste to deal with).
The other problem is unintentional release of radioactive material, as in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Tokaimura, Tomsk, and numerous others.
Human designed/operated systems fail- all we can do is try to lower the failure rate and mitigate the consequences.
Expats in Italy Forum 
Oh, actually I said it in agreement with you.