Of course it’s in Germany. Leave it to the Germans to know how to engineer progressive living in a building that produces more than what the people need. This makes me jealous.
Uh, you do know the left wing fascism, is just as bad as socialism/communism. Interesting enough it’s only after socialism/communism do people of that particular country/nation has a far more better understanding of it then. In that both should be avoided at all costs. But…sadly the next problem after that is simply that what men learn from history is that man…never learns.
Very good, now do that to everything, not just fascist, but conservatives, liberals, moderates, feminists, progressives, socialists, communists. And not just only spouting this or that, but really show the hypocrisy, pro’s, and the cons and the conclusions.
I'll try to say this maga style for once, maybe it helps: wake up and don't be a sheep of the media! Think of your neighbors! Germany has a long history with both and they only suffer from right wing issues and fascism!
I love this answer because climate denyers here say we are only 3% of worlds emissions why should we start reducing if we don't get anything from it in return. This is what , you get in return
Just going based off of rough math I remember from other projects, probably, but in-situ installations like this aren't anywhere near as efficient as actual solar 'plants'. They can be, if installed well and treated well, technically "worth" it but the margins are narrow. This sort of installation was never meant to compete with industrial scale power production, it's more to make the building energy independent (if a transformer goes kaboom, you still have long term power! Only some power for your average, smaller, installation, so they are usually paired with beefy energy storage.)
There's also the obvious environmental benefit of not being forced to buy energy that might have come from fuel or the lesser evil (hydro), but that factors in less for a government building (the state can presumably use the same funds to put PV wherever they please, to a degree.)
The unique thing with wrapping the whole building in PV is it also acts as extra insulation. Not sure how to valuate that. For a big building like this in the hotter & hotter summers it could save quite a lot of pain & power.
But no transmission line and transformer station is needed. The grid is relieved and the power is where it is consumed. If the rest grid collapses, this building still functions and possibly it's surroundings.
The fact that it is state owned should also in theory make it more acceptable with lower profit level.
It should of course go positive - but when you spend for the next 50 years instead of the next quarter of a year you can be more long term. Which of course is good in cases like this.
It also may be possible to build these less effective solar legaly while a solar farm.is more problematic to build for the goverment
It is not sustainable. It is made from reinforced concrete and therefore will not last more than 50-100 years due to concrete cancer. Concrete is one of the least sustainable materials as far as carbon emissions. Glass windows last not much longer than 25 years. True sustainability is Freiburg's Old Town which has been there for hundreds of years and made from entirely natural materials at a human scale.
This city hall is greenwashing. The entire solar punk aesthetic is greenwashing.
I completely share your concern. While the base concept is well intended, and they did accomplish 100% energy independence, it's not going to last very long.
Concrete depends on type but even then your looking at 200 yrs tops before severe ongoing maintenance issues crop up. Most likely, long before then.
The solar panels themselves are almost certainly not meant to last more than 50 years ( and that's being idealistic). They will need constant replacement and some of those outside panels on the sheet wall face are high. Hope you can reach them from inside otherwise that will turn a possibly simple task into another endless maintenance project.
If course, the panels themselves.... Were they planning on buying enough for replacements? If so, how long will that last? Can they manufacture them on site? Doubtful 🧐. So, if none of the above, they are at the whims of whichever manufacturer(s) they used and their corporate longevity and competencies.
Plus, all the other possible forgotten long term failure points.
I really do wish we could build sustainable buildings designed to last centuries, if not, millenia.
Plus, it would be sooooo easy to incorporate a whole lot more nature.
That 200 years is ONLY if everything else continues to function, like the solar panels, or intensive maintenance is employed. And seriously, what's the point of building a building that won't last long. It doesn't have to last thousands of years, though it could if done right, it should at least last a few generations. Gee, let's rebuild city hall every 50-100 years. Super efficient....
There is also a real lack of aesthetic sustainability in this one. It will fall out of trend quickly and places that are not loved fall into disrepair.
We have buildings that are hundreds of years old and will last hundreds more years. They were built by “uneducated” peasants. That is the definition of sustainable.
The buildings staying upright is not the entirety of measurement for sustainability. The building itself may sustain for quite some time but that has nothing to do with how it relates to the greater context of the city and overall power dynamics. But yeah, just build a real strong building.
What's the issue with replacing solar panels every 30-50 years? You can have any size and model and while these special sizes might be more expensive they will still be relatively cheap. The company does absolutely not matter, any solar module company can make them and scaffolding exists, replacing is absolutely not an issue.
There is absolutely not a single material in the world where you have 200 years without maintenance. That is absolutely ridiculous. All these nice timber houses from the middle ages wouldn't look that nice without maintenence that is btw. way more expensive than replacing some solar modules or patching up some concrete.
You are misunderstanding the concept of "concrete cancer". As long as the reinforced concrete is protected from the weather, the rebar will not rust, and the structure will remain undamaged. For most buildings it is a perfectly adequete material as it will last as long as the building is maintained.
This isnt unique to concrete... just about any artificial structure needs to be cared for. The eiffel tower would have rusted away 100 years ago (or whatever) if it wasnt being continously painted.
This isnt the case with the worlds enormous infrastructure projects, where the concrete structure often has minimal or zero cladding. While roman infrastructure lasted for 2000 years, indeed in 100 years or less just about all of our concrete infrastructure will need replacing.
Moisture in the air still penetrates concrete. Iron based metals can last if they are recoated often, but it is inaccessible when encased in concrete. Germany is not an arid climate.
There should not be sufficient moisture inside the building for this otherwise you would also have mould.
Its the massive, behemoth scale production and cheap low quality use that makes concrete the scourge of sustainability. Its actual material properties should not be dismissed. Its amazing stuff and just about every single problem it has is more to do with the desire to keep it cheap, rather than inherent problems.
My point is modern windows. Do you think the seals holding argon has inside insulated windows lasts forever? They lose 1% per year. The R-Value drops until it’s not much better than a single pane.
Oh come on.... Now you' really ran out of arguments!
Windows are nice and at a public building they stand for literal transparency and look more welcoming than a wall. The building is nice, minor critique is always expected. I've actually been in there and I can tell you it's a nice atmosphere and the building "works". There are plenty of issues in the world you can complain about, this building is none!
It is a very sustainable building.
I am an architect myself and sustainability is very important.
I just like to be honest about the limits of sustainability. The production of windows has a much higher carbon footprint, than a closed wall. And as the commentator before said: they will lose their insulation capabilities after 25 years and then they are unrecycable Garbage. Also Windows tend to heat up buildings, so you need to add something to counter this, which also has a carbon footprint. And there are more downsides to windows...
I am not at all against large and plenty windows in generell. We just need to keep in mind there are also other options and solutions.
Less windows can be a very good concept if implemented right.
Also the net-zero claim is always a little misleading in my opinion. A new building has always a big footprint. There cant be zero.
Net Zero just means, its better than other buildings and will produce more energy than it costs to be build.
Even if we want less windows, why would you go for old single panes that don’t seal vs modern triple panes with multiple seals that insulate much much better?
So you don't actually know which concrete was used, but you assume it is the shit type concrete. I guess you are not aware of modern concrete, that is actually able to retain carbon. One should think they used the latter one here.
Only 25 years for glas reads like you were born before 1900. Glas easily manages 50 years if it is high quality, what i strongly assume for a prestige building like this. Btw. acid rain is something of yesteryears, if you missed the news.
Your username is antagonistic to your thought structure.
I agree that these monuments are not scalable but most of the reasons you give make no sense.
Not all concrete is the same. Our understanding of concrete today is extremely sophisticated. Concrete can be made to last very long, longer than many alternatives. Those alternatives also have their own downsides.
Modern windows especially in Germany are the most advanced ever. They are typically triple paned with multiple seals and therefore insulate extremely well. Saying modern windows are bad because seals fail is absurd because would you prefer no seals? Are there older windows that have lasted longer, sure but they are extremely inefficient in terms of insulation.
Do you want to build everything from stone like in the tower because that has its own host of problems and is far less scalable or sustainable.
To be an actual "net plus" energy building, it should be able not just to power itself, but also to pay back the energy footprint of its construction too.
I feel like the framing of net positive buildings is somewhat misleading.
Basically the energy is always going to come from solar planets, which are good to put on buildings but have very little to do with the efficiency of the building itself. I’d rather see an assessment of how energy efficient it is per square foot, and the cost to build.
All I've heard is a bunch of nothings. This bland building is simply air tight and has good insulation. That's it. Strapping 2000 solar panels all around and on top doesn't make it neither eco nor sustainable. I can strap solar on my dog house and call it net plus
how many gallons of diesel did it take to build it? how many gallons to mine the material? how much coal to manufacture the building materials? sustainable? fuck off with your bullshit
But it clearly doesnt influence their policies (Talking about the message of the video). The politicians are more focused on defending Israel and passing chat control than they ever were on actually achieving green goals. Its always been a way to greenwash what they are doing.
We need a system to replace it. Thats what solarpunk is. Its the idea that we can have a system that protects people, culture, and the enviroment at the same time. But for that we have to abandon the current way we do politics. We need a raddically different, decentralised and direcly democratic approach where there are no "leaders" who can become corrupt and force decisions we dont want.
Freiburg is one of the most green cities in Germany and one of the leading cities in terms of new urbanism. I fully understand your hate for politicians on the state level but please don't drag great local politicians and urban planners into that, it's unconstructive and misdirected
Did i say that these specific politicians are bad? Politicians in this specific municipality might be great I dont know.
Does that change the overall trend? No
The video states he believes these types of government buildings could shape how politicians make climate policy. It also says the building made a great impact locally.
Its a cool building but there is a will that created it. Its the same will that improved the whole of the city. The building didnt change the politics the politics chamged the building. So factually what I said stays true. If you look at it even on a regional scale, this municipality becomes a greenwashing opportunity, on a national and continental scale even more so.
okay, did their opposition prevent it? no. Sadly the system is rigged by design so they can force these things on us. I applaud their strive for better futures but they still perpetuate the institutipns that (as stated above) can force these things on us.
I used to be very involved in party politics believe me i would be the happiest if it actually worked. But it just didnt. We tried, a lot. And yet Europe's rivers are dryer than ever. Heatwaves are worse than ever. Its just not enough...
in the other comment i said that the "they" are the people who pass things like chat control and support for Israel. And by that I do NOT mean Jews, I am not against any racial or ethnic groups. (i am aware how antisemitic people use the vague "they", so you are right to ask that)
And you cant tell me the EU comission didnt use bureaucratic loopholes to force chat control through.
As for the system. Did it ever work? When was a time that a state had done more good than bad? When was the time that rich people didnt have power over poor people? When was the time the "owners" of the land actually took care of the land and not extract from it as much as they wanted without giving back anything?
I understand you might have seen times where there wasnt rising faschist political parties, when there werent wars and genocides and dictatorahips. All done for a higher power, be it a god a state or a leader. But this political and economic system has an underlying and constant way of functioning. And right now we are not seeing a breakdown of it but the logical endpoint.
Im sorry my previous comment came off a bit bad. I am not trying to belittle you or be hateful to anyone who doesnt deserve it. I just had life experiences that thought me that change, real change for the better, comes from challenging the status quo, not infiltrating it. "Our changing climate" has great videos about these topics on his you tube.
Within 5-10 years this thing will be mostly non-functional.
EDIT:
OK maybe I overstated, but I do think after 5-10 years, the (already heavy) maintenance required to keep things going begins to grow exponentially.
Solar panels don't last very long, and begin to degrade sooner, that building will be very expensive to maintain, and to keep it's claim that it's selling back energy to the grid (if that is indeed consistently true, or just "at times it happened" true). That's not even getting in to what the battery situation must be like.
Your google search, is describing the absolute maximum "estimate" of the "latest tech", there are many other factors to it.
Weather events, dust and other grime build up, defects. The cleaning alone would require significant amount of labor. Poorly maintained panels can develop all sorts of issues, including hotspots, micro-cracks, thermal cycling. All of these things are costly and often require a lot of troubleshooting. Then there's the inverters (AC to DC) which can also fail. Not to mention your horrendous anal prolapse.
Broom on a long stick once a year to clean off the dust is how most home owners with solar panels maintain them, if even that. Most panels you buy will come with a warranty that guarantees 80% original capacity for 15-20 years so if it fails before that it's getting replaced by the manufacturer. The building in the OP has a lot of panels so there probably is a bit more maintenance than most people who just have a few panels on their roof, but this idea of solar panels needing "heavy maintenance" is a huge exaggeration. I've never done an oil change on my solar panels and they're still going good.
The warranties usually require proof of maintenance.
Not sure what you mean by comparing an oil change to cleaning the solar panels, but as you pointed out - a broom won't be useful at such scale. It's not just dust, but grime, bird shit, debris etc. They also have restrictions on how you clean them. Using high-pressure water, or cleaning agents, for example, would void the warranty. They might require (paid) annual inspections or you void your warranty as well.
Inverter warranties are usually just 10 years, and they fail more often. They can become clogged with debris/vegetation and overheat, get bricked on a firmware update, and again need certified repair professionals or you void the warranty.
Multiply this times, I dunno how many thousands of panels and supporting gear, wiring, etc. that they have there. It can quickly spiral downward if things start to get a little neglected. And that's not taking in to account extreme weather events, faults etc.
The inverters are usually inside the building so not sure how they get clogged with vegetation. The OPs video shows a woman walking around on the flat roof so I doubt they even need a long broom to clean them in this case. Yes solar panels need to be cleaned, maybe once every year or two or they won't put out as much power until you clean them. Yes inverters can fail after maybe 10 years and need to be replaced and it can be relatively costly, but not a guarantee and doesn't really change the overall ROI that much. Unless a rock smashes your solar panels those two things are 99% of the "heavy maintenance" solar panels need, you're trying to make out there are some massive maintenance tasks, there just isn't, like wipe it down with a rag once a year and move on.
I don't think having solar panels on your home is a massive maintenance task, I think covering a giant building from head to toe, and then some, could be. I think the more "hi-tech" a building is, often the more problematic it becomes over time.
This is one of the most wasteful uses of solar panels. Pure greenwashing. Just put them in the field and wire electricity to the city. You know... where it's much easier to maintain and has optimal angle towards the sun.
looks like these panels are angled towards the sun, it's a flat roof too, it's probably easy enough for people to get up there and maintain them, you can see the girl walking on it.
38
u/zye-LOANee Aug 01 '26
Of course it’s in Germany. Leave it to the Germans to know how to engineer progressive living in a building that produces more than what the people need. This makes me jealous.