Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power Technology

Solar Power Capacity Installs Surpass Wind and Coal For Second Year 259

Posted by samzenpus from the going-green dept.
Lucas123 writes: Residential rooftop solar installations hit a historical high in the first quarter of 2015, garnering an 11% increase over the previous quarter and a 76% increase over the Q1, 2014. New installations of solar power capacity surpassed those of wind and coal for the second year in a row, accounting for 32% of all new electrical capacity, according to a new report by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association. Residential solar installation costs dropped to $3.46 per watt of installed capacity this quarter, which represents a 2.2% reduction over last quarter and a 10% reduction over the first quarter of 2014.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Power Capacity Installs Surpass Wind and Coal For Second Year More

Solar Power Capacity Installs Surpass Wind and Coal For Second Year

Comments Filter:

  • Did not RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by mystuff ( 1088543 ) on Thursday June 11, 2015 @11:41PM (#49896253)
    I know the average Slashdot reader doesn't bother to click through to the linked articles anyway. But to then just provide no clickable links whatsoever is a bit harsh, don't you think?
  • One of the hallmarks of PV solar and wind (turbine) power is that its installed capacity is so completely out of sync with its utilization rate. While a coal, nuclear or gas plant can hit utilization rates of 90 - 99%, PV solar and wind tend to fluctuate around 20-30%.

    In short, 70-80% of installed PV solar and wind capacity has to be discarded in order to close to the utilization percentage. It also means that you need 3-5 times as much installed capacity to get near the power delivered figures for baselo

    • Re:Why bother with installed capacity? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @12:11AM (#49896335)

      What do you mean by utilization rate? Do you mean the amount of energy a solar cell generates or do you mean the amount of energy generated at a time it is consumed?

      You can call it circle jerking all you want, but an increase in the amount of renewable energy regardless of your other metrics is always a good thing providing the energy source pays for itself and offsets the energy that went into getting that energy. For solar we've reached that point a long time ago meaning at this point more = better regardless of how it compares to other energy sources.

      • Re:Why bother with installed capacity? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12, 2015 @04:55AM (#49896895)

        The point is that a 100MW nuclear power station is a perfectly good substitute for a 100MW coal power station. When it's mid-winter and the big game is on, and everybody is running heaters, lights and TVs and goodness knows what else, either of those plants will put out 100MW unless it's shut for maintenance. Not a problem.

        But a 100MW solar station is useless as a replacement, it will produce only a fraction of the power, because "100MW" is peak, not mean or median output and the solar station produces its peak output for a few hours here and there, not regularly and certainly not on demand.

        A 500MW solar station is a replacement, so long as it's coupled to a 100MW medium term energy store, just as pumped storage. But the headline power of that plant is five times as much.

        So when "solar surpasses coal" that doesn't mean what it appears to, for example if you had 100 years of building the same capacity of solar as coal, you might think half the power generated would be solar, right? No. More like 10% would be solar. Only when there's 10 times as much solar as coal are you actually producing more power with solar than coal.

        Not because solar is "bad", it's just _different_ and that matters.

      • Actually, he was specifically speaking to the amount of renewable electricity that would be generated, which you have to agree is the important measure, otherwise its just cheering. The solar industry will continue to tout capacity rather than actual generation because most folks don't understand the difference. Since they use it in a comparative way, it is intentionally misleading. They installed more capacity than wind in that time period, but the wind installed in that time period will generate more elec

        • Re:Why bother with installed capacity? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @06:42AM (#49897141)

          Is it the 'best' way to spend our money to get carbon free electricity? That matters when you look at what needs to happen to make a real impact on a global scale. Seems like that is a question many don't like to ask.

          Actually it's a question that many have asked and determined that, yes right now it is. It allows the re-use of existing infrastructure co-located directly at the energy consumer negating transmission losses. Combine it with storage which I think everyone can agree is something that is becoming mainstream and you have a system that can take a very serious dent out of the daily energy peak and cut household electricity carbon emissions (I'm so specific here because as we all know electricity is only a small portion of our footprint).

          Funny side note we just installed 35kW of solar panels on the roof of our main switchroom at work to offset our huge air-conditioning bill. The panels made the switchroom cooler by keeping the sun off the roof and covers the air-conditioning energy. The punchline: I work at a natural gas power station.

          • That "yes" does include a nice $$ gift from us taxpayers though, correct?

            • As opposed to the trillions received by all the other energy sources over the years?

              • That would what is called 'dodging the question'.

                To answer your question, NO. As opposed to $$ directly received by the end consumer for a particular power source. Of course if you want to talk percentages of actual cost, not other source has benefitted nearly as much. If you want to talk $$ per KWH generated in return, solar is many times above any other source wrt getting $$$$. Not even remotely close.

          • and you have a system that can take a very serious dent out of the daily energy peak

            This is the best use of rooftop solar. It makes efficient use of our current infrastructure and actually makes the existing plants more effective. We should change building codes to require all new buildings to provide solar capacity equal to their peak usage - base load.

        • > The solar industry will continue to tout capacity rather than actual generation because most folks don't understand the difference.

          The solar industry reports capacity because the whole electrical industry uses that to size their wires, from transmission lines to the wiring in your house. Every electrical device you plug into the wall outlet has peak power draw listed in Watts or Amps. That's so you don't overload the circuit (typically 20 Amps or 2400 Watts). In the same way, transmission lines that

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

        I think he's talking about nameplate capacity vs. capacity adjusted for capacity factor.

        Nameplate capacity - The power the system generates at full rated capability.

        Capacity factor - Actual production divided by nameplate capacity averaged over time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Nuclear stations usually have 80-90% capacity factor as do most other "baseload" plants including coal

        Natural gas plants often run intentionally at lower capacity factor since they're usually built specifically for peaking. In

    • Yeah, but it can only help mitigate peak demand in the daytime. Building one less coal plant won't kill anybody.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjmnz ( 165487 )

      I noticed you left out two other base load options.
      Geothermal at >95% utilisation (usually 100%)
      Hydro at 30 - 40% utilisation.

      Here in NZ wind is nearer 40%
      All of these numbers are well known and factored in when the economics of power generation are considered.

      In practice Hydro and wind often go well together as a working pair.
      Our neighbours over the ditch (Australia) have just had their government cut funding for renewables because windfarms are ugly and noisy (in favour of coal).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rossdee ( 243626 )

        "Geothermal at >95% utilisation (usually 100%)"

        Are they building any new geothermal installations?
        Or are they still worried about reducing the flow to the geysers, or upsetting the Tangata Whenua?

        "In practice Hydro and wind often go well together as a working pair."

        They should put some wind turbines in the hills around WGTN

        • They have a wind farm in Wellington. It's called West Wind
          They're also building Mill Creek which is in Wellington as well

          The single turbine on Brooklyn hill is likely to be upgraded to a much larger one too.

          • They have a wind farm in Wellington. It's called West Wind.

            That's Wellington's secondary wind farm. The primary wind farm is called The Beehive.

      • Isn't Austrlia's current government essentially owned by Rupert Murdoch? I sure we can all understand that he has to make sure someone will buy the coal from his mines.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      While a coal, nuclear or gas plant can hit utilization rates of 90 - 99%

      I'm curious how you arrive at this figure. You are implying that a Nuclear reactor is utilized for 99% of its lifetime which can't be true simply because of the Availability of the plant when it is being refueled and serviced pushes that figure well below 99%.

      How do you arrive at a 99% utilization rate for a Nuclear Reactor?

    • The right keyword here is "capacity factor". There is a decent article about it on wikipedia. Solar power tends to have around 15%, nuclear around 80%, generally - but it varies from country to country. Basically it is a portion of time the plant is able to run at peak rated power; and since for solar the peak can be attained only around noon and without any clouds, it is so low, compared to other types of powerplants.

    • > It also means that you need 3-5 times as much installed capacity to get near the power delivered figures for baseload power sources.

      Which is perfectly fine, when you consider it costs 3 to 5 times less to build.

      http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf

      Wind is the cheapest form of power. Period. Solar isn't, but unlike wind it can be installed on the residential side, where it's at parity.

    • One of the hallmarks of PV solar and wind (turbine) power is that its installed capacity is so completely out of sync with its utilization rate. While a coal, nuclear or gas plant can hit utilization rates of 90 - 99%, PV solar and wind tend to fluctuate around 20-30%.

      Did you research that yourself, or did you get it from an anti-solar propaganda site? Is it focus group tested? Are you being paid to post? Or are you just passionately opposed to free low-cost solar energy that helps us reduce the money we send to corrupt middle eastern regimes? Personally, I think it is the former.

  • Go Solar, it can make good financial sense. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Friday June 12, 2015 @12:01AM (#49896317)

    I installed 48 panels on my roof back in 2003 which generate up to 8.8 kW DC (7.5 kW AC). The installation generates 10,500 to 12,000 kWh per year depending on the weather. The total cost was $65,000 which after subsidies and tax breaks dropped to $31,000 - which is roughly the same as my installation would cost today before any subsidies. Since installation I've had to cover the meter rental (currently 16.3 cents per day) but I've had no other utility costs and no maintenance costs.

    In the year before I installed solar, electricity cost me a tad under $3,000. Utility costs have increased considerably since then, so I've more than covered the cost of the installation. And I should have another 20 years of life in the panels. Perhaps more.

    If you plan to stay in your house for 10 years or more, it may make good financial sense to consider solar. Based on my experience, it's certainly worth considering.

    • Based on my experience, it's certainly worth considering.

      Well... not knowing where you live, or pretty much any other salient facts (such as the costs of the battery package and the measures you've taken to reduce consumption such that you "have no other utility costs")... your anecdata is pretty much useless. Nice cheerleading, but useless.

    • I installed 48 panels on my roof back in 2003 which generate up to 8.8 kW DC (7.5 kW AC). The installation generates 10,500 to 12,000 kWh per year depending on the weather. The total cost was $65,000 which after subsidies and tax breaks dropped to $31,000 - which is roughly the same as my installation would cost today before any subsidies. Since installation I've had to cover the meter rental (currently 16.3 cents per day) but I've had no other utility costs and no maintenance costs.

      In the year before I installed solar, electricity cost me a tad under $3,000. Utility costs have increased considerably since then, so I've more than covered the cost of the installation. And I should have another 20 years of life in the panels. Perhaps more.

      If you plan to stay in your house for 10 years or more, it may make good financial sense to consider solar. Based on my experience, it's certainly worth considering.

      I'm curious, since there aren't that many people who've had solar for this long. Has the system required any maintenance in those 12 years? New inverter or anything like that? I'm thinking about solar too, but I want to be able to factor in maintenance costs as well. And I'm skeptical of the assumption that you just install the panels on your roof and forget about them for 30+ years. Even my ROOF isn't slated to last that long.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Calibax ( 151875 ) *

        There have been zero maintenance costs. Except that I do hose down the panels once a year, so there's the cost of the water and an hour of my time. It's likely that the inverters that convert the DC from the panels to AC for the house will be the first components to fail. Fortunately the cost of these items has dropped significantly in the 12 years since they current ones were installed, and I would only need one today compared to the three I have installed now. This change alone would drop the install

    • Power companies say solar is not constant and therefore not as useful to them as gas and coal generation plants.

      But solar is perfect for handling the additional load from air conditioning, something that annually has caused power shortages here in the Northeast.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      I have a similar sized PV solar system myself, purchased for about the same price you quote as today's "unsubsidized price". (Well, maybe $32K, but pretty close.) I just got it online in the middle of December of 2014.

      In my case, we still qualified for about $9,000 in Federal subsidies, although these are given back as tax credits at tax time, and last year I wasn't able to collect more than about $6,000 of that total. The other $3,000 will get put onto next year's tax refund.

      Our house is over 100 years o

  • Apples to oranges (Score:5, Informative)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @01:06AM (#49896455)
    Power generated does not equal installed capacity. Power generated = (installed capacity) * (capacity factor [wikipedia.org]).

    For the U.S.:
    • PV solar's capacity factor is about 0.145 for the country overall. In the desert southwest (where most of the solar installations probably are) it's about 0.18.
    • Onshore wind's capacity factor is about 0.20-0.25.
    • Coal's capacity factor is about 0.6.
    • Nuclear's capacity factor is about 0.9.

    So solar has to have about 40% more installed capacity than wind to generate as much power. It needs almost 4x as much installed capacity as coal to generate a comparable amount of power. And it needs 5.5x as much capacity as nuclear to be comparable. Comparing power generation based on installed capacity is like trying to compare how much food people eat based on the size of their refrigerators.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Coal, wind and nuclear are also a bunch more expensive and less accessible. If anyone would sell me a small reactor (e.g. from a sub or whatever), I'd be more than happy to install it in my back yard. But for now, the only thing you can do yourself is solar unless you have a plot of land somewhere outside a city.

      • Re:Apples to oranges (Score:4, Informative)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:15AM (#49897227)

        If anyone would sell me a small reactor (e.g. from a sub or whatever), I'd be more than happy to install it in my back yard.

        I'm curious - how big do you think submarine reactors are? And how big is your backyard?

        A couple of useful hints, by the by:

        1) a naval nuclear reactor is bigger than your house.

        2) they require an ocean to provide cooling water for the system. Though they could probably manage with a decent sized lake or small river.

        3) One man can't operate a naval nuclear reactor.

        4) One house can't use the electricity they produce.

        • If anyone would sell me a small reactor (e.g. from a sub or whatever), I'd be more than happy to install it in my back yard.

          I'm curious - how big do you think submarine reactors are? And how big is your backyard?

          A couple of useful hints, by the by:

          1) a naval nuclear reactor is bigger than your house.

          2) they require an ocean to provide cooling water for the system. Though they could probably manage with a decent sized lake or small river.

          3) One man can't operate a naval nuclear reactor.

          4) One house can't use the electricity they produce.

          Hey, hey, you are being a little unfair here. I understand the nuclear reactor for the U.S. Navy's NR-1 is about the size of a garbage can.

    • Re:Apples to oranges (Score:4, Informative)

      by radl33t ( 900691 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @06:55AM (#49897171)
      yet, solar's output can be tailed very conveniently to peak loads that would otherwise be served by peaking plants, which by virtue of their operation (low capacity factor) are 2-4X more expensive than regular generation, and, as it turns out 15%CF solar. That's before we throw all our natural gas on boats and sell it overseas for a 300% profit.
    • First thanks for the info. I was trying to find it myself.

      The capacity factor definition uses 24 hour day. So for day time power generation without storage you would rate PV at 0.29 immediately. Further instead of averaging it over the entire day, you average it over just peak six hours of generation. The number is 0.58, not too far off from coal.

      Why would you skew it like this in favor of solar? Because solar generation matches the peak demand so well. The peak demand is late afternoon in hot sunny sta

      • The capacity factor definition uses 24 hour day. So for day time power generation without storage you would rate PV at 0.29 immediately. Further instead of averaging it over the entire day, you average it over just peak six hours of generation. The number is 0.58, not too far off from coal.

        Coal's capacity factor during peak hours is close to 1.0. It only drops down to 0.6 because they shut down the furnaces during the night when demand is low. That's why nuclear's capacity factor is so high - the power

  • Deceptive wording (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:47AM (#49896789) Homepage Journal

    Capacity installs.

    Basically it's talking about new installs versus already installed capacity.

    Not overall capacity or utilization in the overall power budget.

    Never mind that solar installs tend to be smaller and MUCH lower capacity than a coal burning plant.

    Also, there's the fact that coal provides more power in the US by more than an order of magnitude.

    So yay. We went from half a percent to 0.51% total power input.
    And oh darn. We maybe stayed around 20% at coal.

    Basically this is a "Rah Rah" article. Kind of like a small company that puts on big, slick productions and appears bigger than they are.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by radl33t ( 900691 )
      Do you feel threatened by a growing solar energy industry?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        No. Currently the solar energy industry is in the neighborhood of "statistical anomaly".
        Nobody's threatened by a statistical anomaly.

        But trying to compare growth in the solar industry at this point, to something entrenched (and nearly peaked, as coal is in the US), it's like comparing baseball statistics between MLB and and the Poughkipsie Pee Wee League.

        In other words, would it change how you look at the data if I told you:

        "We sold 10 home sausage grinders last quarter, this quarter, we did 11. In this s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alomex ( 148003 )

      You must be one of those idiots who moans and groans when GDP grows by 3% which is such a small percentage of total and "only" 1% over the historical average.

      Of course someone who understands math knows that 3% GDP growth is 50% better than historical 2% GDP growth.

      Same withe electricity. We are not about to go around ripping out perfectly functional generating plants be them gas, oil, carbon or nuclear. All we can do is change installs.

      For those renewables are kicking butt. Over the next fifty years as old

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        Oh, must I be?

        I have nothing against the solar industry.

        I simply dislike deceptive comparisons like this, worded in such a way that it magnifies the accomplishments and contributions out of any recognition with reality.

  • One of the factors spurring growth in solar power is the expiration of the federal government's solar investment tax credit (ITC).

    We'll see how well solar competes when it gets (almost) the same tax treatment as other power sources. It will still get a 10% bonus though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close