Even though if we don't agree on climate change is caused by human activities, what's wrong to cut down carbon foot print, to reduce air pollution. From the latest data, California has reduced current air pollution level to 1990 level in 2016, 4 years ahead of schedule by using more alternative solar and wind energy, more efficient automobile etc. In the area I live, I can see more days of clear mountain range around the valley than 30 years ago.
4
There are more options for energy storage than batteries. Hydrogen production and storage during excess electricity production from wind and solar can be subsequently used for power production when needed. It can also be used for transportation. A number of companies have scalable solutions for this. NYT journalists should familiarize themselves with this technology when covering renewables. Have a look at the Canadian company Hydrogenics...
3
@Kenneth The extreme low density of hydrogen is a big hindrance to distribution. Look at the smashing success (?) of the Toyota Mirai vs Tesla. I thought we were done with the "hydrogen economy" and other George W. Bush nonsense. Batteries and hydro are here, now, on the market. The rest is small scale or still research.
Another great example as to why the US does not need the so called Paris accords to improve. No bribes needed to foreign countries to make them a better competitor either.
@vulcanalex - This flawed thinking -- confounding GLOBAL warming with CITY warming -- is extremely dangerous, intellectually dishonest and ignores the scale of the problem. Orlando should be commended and celebrated for its laudable progress, but let's not pretend we don't need global solutions. "the burst of regional government and corporate actions are important, but insufficient." bit.ly/localco2
The same can be said for companies that are reducing their internal carbon footprints. Such "operational greening" when used as a proxy for large-scale policy is equally as dangerous. "The big whiff: How corporate America missed the climate fix." bit.ly/bigwhiff
We DO need international agreements (like 'Paris,') because countries *globally* need to reduce GHG emissions. Further, they need and deserve help from rich countries like the USA who've enjoyed a 200-year headstart, who've contributed far more to the problem, who were blessed with coal, oil & gas and developed the technology early to extract and combust it. Ignoring this fact is morally flawed.
But, Paris is really an aspirational target lacking a mechanism. The world's most famous climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen explains: bit.ly/hansenparis
11
@Greg
Thank you for this excellent reply to naysayers such as vulcanalex. I have read some of his comments to other NYT articles that also reflect the "Trump party" script.
5
Kudos to Orlando for charting a path, where the fed govt (read Trump) has seriously shirked commitment. Any serious progress is progress, and can inspire more across the country and world. We don't need a miracle, just hard work.
8
i love this kind of news. we should have been doing it on a larger scale years ago. its an american story, we get a lemon on pennsylvania avenue and we make lemonade. i’ve loved my ebike for years and its a harbinger of future urban road infrastructures. like all renewables it’s something good all of us can do together for ourselves and country.
5
Cycles/E-bikes can help reducing the emissions from transportation while also potentially making citizens healthier in the long run.
11
@N what if you don't know or can't ride a bike?
@Bos We all do what we can, that's all.
2
Anyone interested in a detailed look at what might be possible with rooftop solar in different areas should look at NREL's report "Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United States. A Detailed Assessment" Here's a snip from the abstract at the link I put at the bottom:
"Small building rooftops could accommodate 731 GW of PV capacity and generate 926 TWh/year of PV energy, approximately 65% of rooftop PV's total technical potential. We conclude by summing the PV-generation results for all building sizes and therefore answering our original question, estimating that the total national technical potential of rooftop PV is 1,118 GW of installed capacity and 1,432 TWh of annual energy generation. This equates to 39% of total national electric-sector sales."
The report is free in a link on the page here:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1236153
Not surprisingly, Florida has a lot of potential, and they should consider the fact that power outages in storms or floods is usually due to disruption in the power lines, so having power on the roof makes neighborhoods more resilient.
More from National Renewable Energy Lab here:
https://www.nrel.gov/technical-assistance/blog/posts/solar-on-every-home...
10
@b fagan
Thanks for the information, but there is a caveat: during power disruptions, roof-top solar isn't a help if it is grid-tied.
I'm in Albuquerque where the sun shines probably more often than in Orlando where I was born and raised and more intensely because of Albuquerque's mile-high elevation. Yet I am waiting to install roof-top solar until batteries are more efficient and way less expensive.
Off-grid is needed for disruption protection.
1
@Mary - some make do these days with a bunch of fairly cheap lead-acid batteries, and as electric cars become more common, the market for used car batteries will lower prices even more. A battery that's not useful for transportation still has lots of capacity left for other purposes.
The other approach, and one that utilities may start adopting, is to change the power electronics at distribution substations so that loss of power TO a substation would allow that substation to act as an independent grid using the power from its local connected solar and batteries.
Utilities have been adapting to the new situation where substations are suddenly moving power in both directions as distributed generation takes hold, and they do see the value of keeping customers lights on even of the transmission grid or a few power lines are down. The newer systems are increasing resiliency and that's long overdue.
They also see this as a benefit as batteries and electric cars get more common, since batteries at night will be able to accept lots of that low-cost wind that blows at night, so the utility uses their expensive wires more efficiently.
2
In order to defeat the doubters, and to give us a sense of imminent success encouraging further effort, it would be helpful to set more realistic targets, such as 80% clean. Nobody will complain if we then, eventually, overshoot that target.
9
@sissifus As the article points out, 100% carbon-free doesn't mean 100% clean.
Of course like all NY Times reporters he understands nothing about power generation and the fact the solar and wind can never replace fossil fuels. Funny how they never tell us how we are supposed to get power when there is no wind or sun. The reason is that they have to maintain natural gas or coal and a standby generation source doubling the investment needed to generate the necessary power. They also never tell you that it would take roughly 2.2 acres of solar cells to power 1,000 homes. do the math and think about how much land would be covered. Journalists are so naive.
1
@conservative For life
Maybe you never heard of storing power for when there's "no wind or sun". Technology evolves quicker than you can imagine and your skepticism shows a lack of understanding.
29
@conservative For life Many of those 1,000 homes could put solar cells on their roofs and generate the power they need over the course of a year -- as we have been doing with our leased solar cells on our roof. We're doing it New England. How much easier in the Sunshine State.
16
@conservative For life
Sorry, it is you who doesn't grasp the facts. By far the greatest power use occurs in the heat of the day with a/c units running at the max, which is exactly when solar panels are producing. Solar is therefore a preferred technology for additional system capacity, and will save utilities huge amounts of money in avoided capital costs. Existing conventional plants can carry the off-peak load for the foreseeable future, and eventually will be replaced with non-fossil generation when battery technology is improved. 2.2 acres is nothing compared to 1000 homes -- their rooftops easily have that much space. In Florida at least, 1/2 of a typical rooftop is sufficient to generate that home's average needs.
11
The word "algae" appears only once in this article (in passing, at that) and should not be in the title. No introduction of algae bioproducts, carbon capture, feasibility, or the pesky scale-up issues.
SAD!
8
I hope Orlando will vote for Democrats, they maybe a better partner in their quest for carbon free City.
9
Orlando tends to vote Democratic.
3
As a resident of Orlando, I was surprised to read this article. People I know lost the battle against building the coal-fired Stanton energy plant--OUC was determined to push coal as the main source of power, and they got their wish. Today it is a long and complicated process to get permitting for solar roof panels.. more so than in other cities--OUC is pushing "community solar" where they own/control the solar panels..The LED lights you mention are the horrible grey-light 5000 Kelvin types. I have snuck 600 watts of solar in my backyard (don't tell the city)..so nothing to see here folks--no innovation --all talk...
12
@roger
I remember that battle and, afterwards, the traincars filled with coal that passed by my home and workplace.
1
The cost of doing nothing now will far outweigh the cost of doing something now.
11
@Jane You're right. Moreover, doing nothing now, or worse, having done in the past what is aggravating climate change actions are now costing dearly. Perhaps the "clean" electricity being produced, or that will be produced in the future, can be used to power the pumps that will be necessary to reduce Orlando's climate change caused flooding damage. The chickens sooner or later come home to roost.
3
Inspiring. God speed with your efforts. I will use this article to insist my community take a look at this.
10
@jim roberts - That's great, but pls recognize "The limits of local fights against climate change" bit.ly/localco2. Cities and companies are a great start. They prove the business case for sustainability. But this is not nearly enough. Let us not ignore this fact at our peril. We need to price carbon and this will require a major policy lift. Get started at cclusa.org
1
Good luck to you, Orlando. Changes in energy harvest, production and utilization are long overdue. Lord knows we have plenty of blasting sunshine in Florida. Yet, I'd much rather see a state-wide, concerted effort to revamp the existing electrical infrastructure ...Hurricanes will always be the primary damaging force. Last year's Irma caused one of the worst electrical/power fiascos in Florida's history, materially and financially.
8
It would help if Disney World and Epcot made certain to generate all of their power with renewable sources.
22
@Jean
Disney World already has a 5 MW solar farm, and is in the process of construction an additional 50 MW on the western edge of the property.
The bigger issue, that isn't mentioned in this article at all, is that Orlando, like Jacksonville and many other Florida metro areas, is a sprawling jungle of asphalt with some of the longest average automobile commutes in the country. It doesn't help the planet if you generate 100% of your electricity from Solar, but commute 45 miles each way from Sanford in a giant four wheel drive pick up truck that gets 11 mpg.
23
Florida has it pretty tough, with a corrupt, climate-change-denying Republican governor and state legislature. Our utilities know perfectly well that solar power is cost effective ... That's why they are installing huge solar farms of their own even while trying to kill off residential solar power (competition!).
But millions of Floridians understand climate change and support clean energy. That's the good news. As this article shows, change takes time, but it is coming.
42
@Steve If it is so cost effective the market will bring it to its appropriate share. No regulation needed or desired. And no Paris accord either.
@vulcanalex You DO know that there isn't a "free market" when it comes to power generation, and that fossil fuels enjoy huge tax breaks and subsidies, right? Also, why is the Paris accord such a problem for you? Pollution and climate change is a GLOBAL issue.
4
After reading this article, a couple of thoughts readily came to mind: 1) great to see that Orlando is looking to do something about relying on fossil fuel sources for its energy needs and not waiting for the federal gov't to help it; and 2) why is it that when it comes to doing those things that can help the natural environment there is always the matter of the financial cost? Someone please remind me, when isn't there a financial cost to just about everything that government, be it local, state and/or federal, does for us? There is no doubt that switching from fossil fuel sourced energy to renewable energy will be a costly endeavor. Continuing to rely on fossil fuel sources for our energy needs will be just as costly, if not more so, over time. Kudos to Orlando for adopting these measures to make living, working and playing there a more livable and healthier experience. Glad to see them setting timelines to reach certain goals and glad to see that there are folks and groups who are willing to see to it that the city sticks to these timelines. Perhaps if more of us were overly vigilant when state governments and the federal government spend our money so recklessly a lot of our state governments and the federal government would not be running up these deficits annually.
20
@Trevor Dawes Since someone must pay that is why finance is always relevant. Money does not grow on trees.
This is inspirational. I remember Orlando in the late 1970s as being smaller, greener (literally), and much cooler than present day. Making public transportation hip, accessible, and fast would help with traffic congestion, and could lead to the development of safe bike lanes and a more livable city. It would also be great to designate a few blocks of car free space to encourage more pedestrian usage.
25
This weeks New York Times interests me because I learned about how the solar panels will help the environement and also inspire me to make good choices to environment and help planet Earth.
9
People are always complaining that government is useless. In the case of climate change they are absolutely right. The cities and states will have to do this on their own. It's self preservation. The folks in Washington don't care. Their there for the money grab, not to help the folks who elected them.
18
Right arm! And just like they, I’m here for the “living my life while I still can on my own terms - grab. And for selfish reasons I am also probably making a small or smallest carbon footprint possible. Example: I have a electric flash water heater that I have hardwired at half power (18000 Watts is/are too much $)so that I can heat My house water to 104°F – just right - And a small buzzer (planning and materials obtained, implementation forthcoming) to “train” my ear for when my hi-caloric water heating is in effect.
At least some in this country are trying, in spite of the antediluvuian mindset that paralyzes Washington. They may wake up when the Great Flood comes, and rising, warm seawater laps at the Capitol doors.
There is still a long way to go -- in regulating refrigerants, making transportation much more fuel efficient, and in developing both wind and bio-fuel power sources. That will have to wait, I guess, until sharper minds in Europe and China chart the way and we of the backward nation finally follow.
46
Are these same technological pioneers also making their houses submersible? Hurricane-proof, maybe?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
2
@ubique - I don't understand this reference. Please explain.
2
@ubique - Florida did change building laws after Andrew to ensure fewer roofs would blow off. As for submersible, that applies to NYC and surroundings, too. Some of my family living in the area were without power for more than a full week after Sandy.
2
Orlando should remember to also find alternatives for the carbon based fuels burned by cars and all those jets flying in tourists.
19
@steve There is nothing wrong with a city - or an individual, for that matter - doing everything in their power to reduce their carbon footprint. Just because not everyone is moving so fast, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
That's what makes it even more crucial for cities like Orlando to take the lead now - besides, it'll benefit them down the line, while the laggards wish they'd gotten started sooner.
37
Fantastic !
Where are they at with the plans for the huge helium balloons to keep central Florida from sinking ?
6
@D. Whit. - Their plan to keep Florida from being inundated by the ocean is to do their part in reducing CHG emissions. That is all any of us can do. Go Orlando.
8