US Solar Production Soars By 25 Percent In Just One Year (arstechnica.com) 194
Yesterday, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) released electricity generation numbers for the first five months of 2024, revealing that solar power generation increased by 25% compared to the same period last year. Ars Technica's John Timmer reports: The EIA breaks down solar production according to the size of the plant. Large grid-scale facilities have their production tracked, giving the EIA hard numbers. For smaller installations, like rooftop solar on residential and commercial buildings, the agency has to estimate the amount produced, since the hardware often resides behind the metering equipment, so only shows up via lower-than-expected consumption.
In terms of utility-scale production, the first five months of 2024 saw it rise by 29 percent compared to the same period in the year prior. Small-scale solar was "only" up by 18 percent, with the combined number rising by 25.3 percent. Most other generating sources were largely flat, year over year. This includes coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, all of which changed by 2 percent or less. Wind was up by 4 percent, while natural gas rose by 5 percent. Because natural gas is the largest single source of energy on the grid, however, its 5 percent rise represents a lot of electrons -- slightly more than the total increase in wind and solar.
Overall, energy use was up by about 4 percent compared to the same period in 2023. This could simply be a matter of changing weather conditions that required more heating or cooling. But there have been several trends that should increase electricity usage: the rise of bitcoin mining, growth of data centers, and the electrification of appliances and transport. So far, that hasn't shown up in the actual electricity usage in the US, which has stayed largely flat for decades. It could be possible that 2024 is the year where usage starts going up again. Since the findings are based on data from before some of the most productive months of the year for solar power, solar production for the year as a whole could increase by much more than 25%. Overall, the EIA predicts solar production could rise by as much as 42% in 2024.
In terms of utility-scale production, the first five months of 2024 saw it rise by 29 percent compared to the same period in the year prior. Small-scale solar was "only" up by 18 percent, with the combined number rising by 25.3 percent. Most other generating sources were largely flat, year over year. This includes coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, all of which changed by 2 percent or less. Wind was up by 4 percent, while natural gas rose by 5 percent. Because natural gas is the largest single source of energy on the grid, however, its 5 percent rise represents a lot of electrons -- slightly more than the total increase in wind and solar.
Overall, energy use was up by about 4 percent compared to the same period in 2023. This could simply be a matter of changing weather conditions that required more heating or cooling. But there have been several trends that should increase electricity usage: the rise of bitcoin mining, growth of data centers, and the electrification of appliances and transport. So far, that hasn't shown up in the actual electricity usage in the US, which has stayed largely flat for decades. It could be possible that 2024 is the year where usage starts going up again. Since the findings are based on data from before some of the most productive months of the year for solar power, solar production for the year as a whole could increase by much more than 25%. Overall, the EIA predicts solar production could rise by as much as 42% in 2024.
The Economist had an excellent review of Solar (Score:5, Interesting)
As the subject says, The Economist had an excellent review of Solar a few issues back:
https://www.economist.com/week... [economist.com]
Most of it is paywalled, however, the gist is that Solar has been growing exponentially worldwide the last 10 years or so. Newly installed capacity is growing by about 50% year over year IIRC. We cannot expect this rapid growth to continue as fast as now for many years - but that has been said every year.
Ever year new projections have been released about where we'll be in 10 years. Every year it's taken less than a year to beat the 10 year projections (IIRC).
Greenpeace estimates of where we would be in 2030 in the "best case scenario", released in 2016 (I think?) was beaten last year.
In short: The growth of solar is absolutely exceeding all expectations by orders of magnitude. The challenge will be grid scale battery storage. Solar is on path to produce abundant electricity "in total", but there's an urgent need for battery storage for evening/nighttime/morning use.
Re: (Score:2)
People are realizing that they can make their own electricity and be free of utility prices. In places with unstable grids they can have power when the grid is down.
Not just in the home, for their car too. No more worrying about gas prices, just charge up at home with solar energy.
The main issue is that some people are left out of this due to renting or not being able to afford the investment. It's a great investment to make though, typical payback in the UK is 2-3x better than the best available savings ac
Re: (Score:2)
not being able to afford the investment.
It's easy to get a loan to install solar.
What you save on electricity is often more than enough to cover the loan payments.
Once the loan is paid, the panels increase the resale value of your home but are often exempt from tax appraisals.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be exempt. You don't get taxed on the value of your refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, water heater, or any other appliance. It's complete bullshit in states where this isn't outlawed as these systems depreciate over time and are susceptible to damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And adding solar panels is unique among home improvement activities in that there are fraudulent and shady contractors, but we don't see that in literally every other aspect of home improvement?
Sorry, if you're a homeowner you have to deal with that shit on literally every improvement you do. That's why you do your legwork to make sure you're hiring competent people that know what they are doing, and are interested in being there long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% this.
We installed rooftop solar two years ago. Paid cash. Got a fat tax credit. And the state I live in passed a law that says adding solar panels cannot increase the tax assessment of the home.
We offset 70% of our electric usage, including charging EVs. During summer months, we're carrying a credit with our electrical service provider. I calculated our break-even at about 6 years and we're on schedule for that.
I would have put even more panels on the roof if local building code would have allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Have you got a link to the maths on that for the UK? I’ve run the numbers for myself several times, and it’s always felt like the ROI wasn’t as good as it needs to be for it to work for me financially. The capex and labour costs were just too high to be offset by the savings, so far as I could tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Use this EU tool to estimate how much solar energy you could produce: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pv... [europa.eu]
You need to tell it approximately where you live in the UK, and the angle your roof faces (the azimuth). You can use the standard 35 degree pitch if you don't know what your roof's actual pitch is, it's usually about right for the UK.
From there go to your energy provider and find out how much electricity you use per year. Plug that and the amount you can generate into this website: https://great-home [great-home.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! Will have a play and see if the calculations look more promising. I’d thought FITs were a thing of the past — that would make a big difference. We have induction hob and an EV, but haven’t yet got a heat pump. That’s the big obvious other change, but it does require a significant additional upfront investment. Part of me is tempted to hold fire for a year and see whether Labour introduces some new / better / more sane incentives
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think a lot of people are waiting to see what Labour does on this.
The FIT now is crap, but several energy providers offer much better rates. I think OVO can go as high as 40p/kWh under some circumstances. Octopus have an "agile" feed in tariff if you want to try it, which can get up into the 30p range, but I think at the moment the fixed 15p rate is a better deal for most people
You can get even better rates with Octopus if you let them control your battery. Basically they can tell it when to dischar
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a lot of energy. For comparison my maximum monthly is 624kWh this year, and I work from home. Even friends with fairly long commutes in two EVs, and a high power home server running 24/7, are only managing about 800kWh max per month.
Are you sure you aren't out by a factor of 10?
If your energy consumption is that extreme then there must be some very cheap and easy ways to massively reduce it.
To answer your question, there's a useful calculator here: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pv... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
What is the size of your home, and how do you heat it in winter?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say 4000kWh of that was purely on heating. That's 5.5kW average over the month. With a heat pump that would be around 20kW of heating, constantly. If your house needed that, you would do well to spend some money insulating it.
For reference you should be looking for around half that, if you have a large averagely insulated home, and live in a cold climate. Modern homes and homes that have been properly insulated are considerably better.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say 4000kWh of that was purely on heating. That's 5.5kW average over the month. With a heat pump that would be around 20kW of heating, constantly. If your house needed that, you would do well to spend some money insulating it.
For reference you should be looking for around half that, if you have a large averagely insulated home, and live in a cold climate. Modern homes and homes that have been properly insulated are considerably better.
Yah - it does seem like a hella lot of electricity use.
On insulation and other electricity savers...
My house was pretty well insulated already, but I added more to the attic when I installed a super high efficiency gas furnace and switched from oil. Some naysayer friends claimed that was stupid - "What's the payback time for all that?"
Turns out it was only a few years. The naysayers didn't factor in where the price of heating oil was going to go. Same with things like electrical use.
Same with lig
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to find some numbers for population centres in Canada as a sort of worst-case, or maybe in the northern US. I can see how more would be used if he was using a heat pump for all his heating and hot water, but not that much. And if he was using a heat pump, he would surely know about solar PV.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a lot of energy.
Just for comparison... 3500 sq/ft on a SEER 18+ heat pump in central Texas, I peak above 3100 kWh in July/August. And that's with a recent build Energy Star rated house with expanded foam insulation. Humidity and heat above the 90's at night really eat kWh. It probably doesn't help having two teenagers at home with 300+ watt gaming rigs in the summer.
The flip side is it's a two month peak, and you just plan for it. I'm below 50kWh/day for much of the winter & spring months, and ~3kWh/day of that is
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it depends what your goal is. The only real limit on solar is the space you can dedicate to it. The panels are cheap and getting cheaper. I was even thinking about getting some vertical ones for the evenings and winters, but I need to look at what the regulations are.
Re:The Economist had an excellent review of Solar (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the U.S. average household consumption is under 1000 kWh/mo [eia.gov], I have to ask: just what the hell are you doing to burn more than 5 times that? This is not a metric where higher is better.
You want bang for your buck: get someone to perform an energy audit, and then commit to their suggested improvements. I think you will find that there's a lot you can do to reduce your usage, and will have a very short payback.
Re: (Score:2)
You want bang for your buck: get someone to perform an energy audit, and then commit to their suggested improvements. I think you will find that there's a lot you can do to reduce your usage, and will have a very short payback.
So much this. People seem to not factor everything into their calculations of "payback", if they do them at all. I wrote above about my swapping out an oil furnace for a super efficient gas one, and even my calculations were off a bit - I didn't compensate exactly how high home heating oil prices were going to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric heat would do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Spunds you could benefit from better insulation or may not heating your outdoor pool in Winter?
Re: (Score:2)
You should try getting some insulation or something. If you aren't off by an order of magnitude or more, you'd be doing better to just light money on fire.
I have a 9.2kW array on my rooftop which is 23 panels, and I live above the 45th parallel. That covers less than 40% of my roof, with none of them on the north-facing side.
I generated 9538 kWh in CY2023.
Re: (Score:2)
(approx. $40-50M in a large industrial building)
To be fair, their energy usage is about that of a small industrial building.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is on path to produce abundant electricity "in total", but there's an urgent need for battery storage for evening/nighttime/morning use.
Some remarks:
1. Battery storage is just one option.
2. A modern grid will adjust energy consumption to supply, reducing the need for storage. Get one.
Re: (Score:2)
The challenge will be grid scale battery storage. Solar is on path to produce abundant electricity "in total", but there's an urgent need for battery storage for evening/nighttime/morning use.
And we're getting it. There are already storage systems that fit on the end of arrays. https://www.dovetailsolar.com/... [dovetailsolar.com] It can be placed on already installed arrays.
This stuff is happening, and the naysayers are several steps behind.
Re: (Score:2)
In short: The growth of solar is absolutely exceeding all expectations by orders of magnitude.
It's important to point out why this is happening. It's not because of subsidies, or government mandates or climate change fears... it's because it's cheap. This is how we'll move away from fossil fuels, by creating new technologies that are actually better and cheaper, that people want to adopt.
The challenge will be grid scale battery storage.
Will it? I'm not so sure it will be such a challenge. Batteries also continue getting cheaper, and better, at an exponential rate. And battery storage is not the only option. As solar gets cheaper and cheaper we'
Yeah, but... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but... [insert fossil fuels lobby talking points here]
They do prey on the inertia effect many people have.
All the while, we're quietly and rapidly working the technology. That's the whacky thing about this. It requires no breakthroughs like fusion, no huge startup costs like nuclear, all applied technology that is quite scalable, and easily upgradeable.
makes me laugh (Score:2, Funny)
typical yankie exceptionalism - they didnt "produce" any solar at all, the sun did
Community solar (Score:2)
Our area got offered community solar last year. Instead of installing a custom solar setup on your roof, buy a share of a solar farm in out where retired farmland is near transmission lines. The solar power produced gives you credit on your electric bill, at a 10% discount in your benefit. Their projects get fully subscribed as fast as they can build them.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Informative)
With 25% yearly increases, it would outpace all the currently used fossil fuels for utility electrical generation in ~12 years. After ~15 years solar would be producing double what fossil fuels currently produce.
25% a year is actually very fast.
In 2023 US electrical utilities produced
Fossil fuels (total) 2,505 Billion kWh
Photovoltaic 162 Billion kWh
To match the current usage
t = ln(A/P) / n[ln(1 + r/n)]
t = ln(2,505.00/162.00) / ( 1 × [ln(1 + 0.25/1)] )
t = ln(2,505.00/162.00) / ( 1 × [ln(1 + 0.25)] )
t = 12.272135 years
For double the current fossil fuel usage
t = ln(A/P) / n[ln(1 + r/n)]
t = ln(5,010.00/162.00) / ( 1 × [ln(1 + 0.25/1)] )
t = ln(5,010.00/162.00) / ( 1 × [ln(1 + 0.25)] )
t = 15.378418 years
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have heard about the Mojave Desert, or, maybe not. There's a lot of room there to deploy large scale solar.
Re: Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
I like solar, and have solar installed, but I do not think large ecosystem disrupting installations is a good solution.
Re: (Score:3)
It sure as hell is a lot better than the ecosystem disruption the current solution does!
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. Motes and beams, people!
Re: (Score:2)
Blanketing a desert with panels would be horrendous for the ecosystem. Back in my youth, I dated a desert biologist and was surprised by the amount of life.
I like solar, and have solar installed, but I do not think large ecosystem disrupting installations is a good solution.
The side argument is missing an important point. You don't have to be in a desert to deploy solar. It is expandable. If you get a bit less insolation, you put up some more panels.
I live in the Ridge and Valley region of Pennsylvania https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/... [noaa.gov] Steep mountains, narrow valleys, a gorgeous place. But we're putting up solar at a rapid clip.
But to address what would happen in a hot desert environment with solar panels, it would probably be a net gain for the desert critters. While p
Re: Lame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The desert is good because it doesn't rain often.
There indeed are better places to install solar. But it is a matter of not letting perfect to be the mortal enemy of good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The desert is good because it doesn't rain often.
And there ain't no one for to give you name.
Re: (Score:2)
The side argument is missing an important point. You don't have to be in a desert to deploy solar. It is expandable. If you get a bit less insolation, you put up some more panels.
The direct consequence of this is that the cost of power from a solar installation is inversely proportional to the incident solar radiation. You get more watt-hours for the buck the higher the sunlight availability is. And, for many applications, it's the insolation during the worst week that matters (although in warm climates, it's the insolation during the worst week that people run air conditioners).
--
As a footnote to those following who don't know the lingo, "insolation" is short for "incident solar ra
Re: (Score:2)
The side argument is missing an important point. You don't have to be in a desert to deploy solar. It is expandable. If you get a bit less insolation, you put up some more panels.
The direct consequence of this is that the cost of power from a solar installation is inversely proportional to the incident solar radiation. You get more watt-hours for the buck the higher the sunlight availability is. And, for many applications, it's the insolation during the worst week that matters (although in warm climates, it's the insolation during the worst week that people run air conditioners).
Yes, it's always best to find the sunniest spots to set one up. Which is why the concept of putting solar arrays in orbit, and then microwaving the power to the surface of the earth won't die. Nothing else about that makes sense, but yes, arrays placed there will get a lot of sunlight.
Although sometimes they take some sort of average. With living in a forsted environment, when I've tried to get involved in some solar offerings, they tell me that it won't work in my neighborhood. Well, having purchased an
Re: (Score:2)
Blanketing a desert with panels would be horrendous for the ecosystem.
Maybe. Depends on how it's done.
Solar panels won't cover 100% of the surface area, and there will of course still be ground under the panels. Done right, it could even enhance the ecosystem.
The problem is more likely that the installation, and then the maintanance, of large area solar panels will likely mean people making access roads. Would be very interesting to see if you can make this with low impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
Tear down a forest in Virginia to build a shopping center: no problem. Put up a solar panel in the desert: will somebody please think of the desert life.
Please just stfu. Your opinion is retarded.
In my area, the critters like the solar panels. Birds nest in a protected area and a fair amount of their food will grow under them. So it's largely a net gain for the wildlife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's largely a net gain for the wildlife.
lets break down this inanity.... good for the nesting bird sure, but now that redfinch numbers have doubled, grasshopper numbers have fallen through the floor.... well isnt it bad that grasshopper numbers have fallen? species going extinct is bad right? soo all species should simply increase in number? or should they remain at the ratios they were when we first discovered them? how do you even know the right amount of species in each area? whats so great about the redfinch? why are we picking favourite species here? do we not care about the life that required direct sunlight - sunlight now blocked out by the solar panels? arent we displacing life by just existing? arent we by definition competing for resources with - and therefore killing off - other organisms AT ALL TIMES?! JUST BY VIRTUE OF EXISTING?! fuck wildlife its fine without your ideas on utoopia
I was waiting for someone to say that it was bad to provide for some species. Except that people od it all the time. So and I feed the birds all the time, summer and winter. We still have grasshoppers. And none of the birds are invasive species.
There is no "right amount of species" in any area. And if these redfinches kill off all the grasshoppers, they will also make life tougher for themselves. They need the grasshoppers.
As well, what do you think we're going to do - place panels over every square
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you only seem to understand half of how over-predation works.
If the grasshopper count starts to dwindle, the predators have to find another food source or they die too; and then grasshopper numbers start to recover because there is less predators about.
This has been happening for millions of years, regardless of if some solar panels are there or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And so whether panels are there or not, your equilibrium among predator and prey is unaffected in the long term.
Please tell me you don't make important decisions on a daily basis if you can't infer the point from what I wrote. This is seriously middle-school life science.
Re: Lame (Score:2)
And I am not a fan of razing forests to install shopping centers, so nice "what aboutism" argument.
Whoever modded you up has questionable judgement. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have heard about the Mojave Desert, or, maybe not. There's a lot of room there to deploy large scale solar.
Let's not forget that even Alaska has solar power installs. Obviously can't provide power all year in the farther north, but they hella cut the diesel bill in a lot of small villages. But there is a lot of land available, even if not what might be considered prime. Here in PA, we get more than our share of cloudy weather, Hard to consider it prime at all.
Here in PA, we don't pay much attention to the naysayers, and are installing solar and wind at a rapid clip. And now that storage has arrived, it is wor
Re: (Score:2)
Here in PA, we get more than our share of cloudy weather, Hard to consider it prime at all.
I was told it's always sunny in Philadelphia. How can Pennsylvania be a bad place for solar power?
Re: (Score:2)
Here in PA, we get more than our share of cloudy weather, Hard to consider it prime at all.
I was told it's always sunny in Philadelphia. How can Pennsylvania be a bad place for solar power?
Well, Danny DiVito is the sunshine that guides our lives, so yeah, in Philly it's always sunny.
Re: Lame (Score:2)
While I wouldn't say there "isn't room," space constraints causing nonlinear cost increases are a well known phenomena, and are in the minds of people that study these deployments. It's a bigger problem for wind than solar but both are affected.
To put it simply, the first installations occupy the "best" land (highest output, cheapest to acquire, least local resistance). These installations also make the most money, as the wholesale energy market can fully absorb their output at a price that gets set by trad
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in the Mojave Desert. Deploy all the solar you like - but do make sure to check the environmental impact report. Otherwise, feel free to do all the solar energy you like in your own back yard, please?
If it isn't sunny enough where you are, I recommend you consider geothermal and/or wind power (solar energy by proxy). Just don't destroy the desert - there are those of us who think it's as beautiful an ecosystem as any on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
HVDC can do it. Not a problem.
Re: Lame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Infrastructure is eye-wateringly expensive. Bringing the structurally deficient bridges in the US up to snuff will cost on the order of $300 billion, but most people would regard that as a sensible outlay. A carrier strike group cost about $30 billion to build and will never bring a dime into the US treasury, but it's completely uncontroversial to build and operate ten of the things.
Really you have to look at the alternatives to decide what is practical, not just the price tag. Sensible projects are che
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the cost of climate change damage will be extremely high. And the US grid is crumbling anyways, at some time you have either start to invest or be history.
Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an article about US solar production.
Why would we need to send solar power produced in the US "half way around the world" ?
Nice goalpost moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar isn't the only renewable on the table. Obviously some places it wont be ideal. Theres also however Wind, Geothermal and Hydrotelectric. All of these generate power cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear is also viable, although we haven't quite cracked the "cheaper than..." part yet, and theres well known political problems unfortunately. On the upside, theres already a fair amount of nuclear happily fizzing away out there, with more on the horizon. Between all these sources, there isn't really a strong r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the major benefits of wind and solar is the ability to diversify locations. This can create local jobs managing and maintaining the solar and wind farms and help to support the various towns and villages that were left behind when the coal jobs left.
Re: (Score:2)
Will any of these politicians allow for testing a nuclear power plant to the point of failure? Of course not, because that would not be "safe".
No need for the quotes on "safe" there. Of course it wouldn't be safe.
Re:Lame (Score:4, Informative)
To replace all US energy usage would require about 2.6e4 km^2 of area - a field of solar panels 160 km [100 mi] to a side. That may sound like a lot, but on the other hand:
* Total U.S. farmland is 3.6e7 km^2. [ref [statista.com]]. That's over 1000x. And with agrivoltaics [energy.gov], it is possible for solar and agriculture to coexist in at least some of that footprint.
* Total U.S. urban area is about 2.8e5 km^2. [ref [umich.edu]]. That's nearly 10x.
* Total U.S. paved-over area is about 1.5e5 km^2 [estimates vary [google.com]]. That's close to 10x.
* President Biden's home state of Delaware - the second smallest state in the country - has an area of 6.5e3 km^2. [ref [wikipedia.org]]. That's 1/4th the necessary area. No one will miss it [youtu.be], right? (California, for comparison, is about 62x larger; Texas, about 100x.)
To use pop culture references:
"The U.S. is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
"The U.S. has got huuuuge...tracts of land!"
One needn't clear cut forests or fallow productive land to produce abundant solar energy. This video [youtube.com] frames the topic and cites studies suggesting that most U.S energy demand can handled just by rooftop installations: building on buildings that are already there!
And that's just solar - there are plenty of other low-carbon energy resources to throw in the mix. We needn't - and shouldn't - rely on just one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
germany is the size of montana. 1 of 50. and montana, while decent sized is not huge by us standards....
that said, germany is way cooler and so much more to do and see then montana.
montana is nice and all but its no germany!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this article gives sizes for all of Europe, not the EU, but still I believe that they are pretty close.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought: solar and wind on the King Ranch in TX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "e 825,000 ac"res (3,340 km2; 1,289 sq mi)[3] it is larger than both the land area of Rhode Island and the area of the European country Luxembourg.[
Re: (Score:3)
Do you understand how many parking lots there are in this country, which are bathed in sunlight without obstruction the majority of the day?
Also: it makes for a nicer parking lot, where your car stays cooler due to being in the shade. And wouldn't you know it - it's also a pretty good way to add some EV chargers to that parking lot too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but you are really mistaken on this. The amount of area needed by modern panels would be pimple on the face of most nations. A mere speck. For the U.S., it's roughly 10,000 square miles with 20% efficiency panels.
The contiguous "lower 48" U.S. has 3,119,884 square miles. So that's 0.32%.
And that ignores the fact that about 2/3 of citizens own homes and the square feet of the roof or backyard can be used without disruption. You can even make a nice shady pergola in the back yard.
Likewise,
Re:Lame (Score:5, Interesting)
See my main post on this:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
It is not super slow at all. See wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The growth is absolutely astounding. Both production rates and installation rates of solar panels are increasing at a rapid clip, and if the growth in yearly installed new capacity just keeps going for a year or two, and then keeps steady - we'll be in pretty good shape LONG before 2040.
Solar alone has far superceded what we expected the total installed base to be in 2040 back in 2016. A significant amount of the required energy production to replace fossil has *already been solved* by Solar - but - it's a gift that keeps on giving (in a good way). The "remaining" problem is largely grid scale storage (or maybe even "per house storage").
Both China and India is adding *astounding* amounts of Solar every year. They will probably end up polluting way less than expected towards 2040. Large part of Africa will probably invest in Solar directly, which will also solve big problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Auke Hoekstra did a very famous graph debunking of the IEA’s forecasts all the way back in 2018 that shows this point rather neatly (solar growth has been wild for a lot more than the last decade(
https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]
Fixed typo in link; on exponential growth (Score:2)
Fixed: https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]
"The IEA has been guilty of consistently low-balling solar, and renewables, growth. This led Auke Hoekstra, Senior Advisor in Electric Mobility at the Eindhoven University of Technology in January to take the agency to task for getting solar projections wrong year after year (see graphic). Following the release of its latest report, Hoekstra has now updated his graphic, âoeIEA versus reality in solar PVâ (see main picture), which clearly demonstrates that th
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for fixing and an interesting read of yours, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The thing here is (which the anti-green and the nuclear fanbois always ignore as it makes them look stupid), solar is cheap, long-lived, low-maintenance, low-risk and reliable (if placed right). It gets built because it makes a lot of economic sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is also more easily distributed. While large solar plants definitely benefit from economies of scale, they can be easily augmented with on-site solar installations and storage.
Normally a parking lot is just a giant heat island. However if you put up solar panel shades, not only do you shade everything in the parking lot but actually capture some of that insolation and put it to use. The same goes for pretty much any structure.
The same ends up being true with local battery storage. A battery can captur
Re: (Score:2)
See my main post on this:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
It is not super slow at all. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The growth is absolutely astounding. Both production rates and installation rates of solar panels are increasing at a rapid clip, and if the growth in yearly installed new capacity just keeps going for a year or two, and then keeps steady - we'll be in pretty good shape LONG before 2040.
Solar alone has far superceded what we expected the total installed base to be in 2040 back in 2016. A significant amount of the required energy production to replace fossil has *already been solved* by Solar - but - it's a gift that keeps on giving (in a good way). The "remaining" problem is largely grid scale storage (or maybe even "per house storage").
Both China and India is adding *astounding* amounts of Solar every year. They will probably end up polluting way less than expected towards 2040. Large part of Africa will probably invest in Solar directly, which will also solve big problems.
Wasn't sure where to clip in here, so I'll comment on the end. We're installing solar here at a breathtaking clip. And the Allegheny escarpment provides a lot of 24/7/365.25 wind for wind turbines. They don't really need storage.
But to the solar panels, If you see one of these or the like https://www.dovetailsolar.com/... [dovetailsolar.com] on the side of your array, it's storing electricity right now.
I'm pretty certain the voters in South Carolina might be wondering about the 9 billion they are going to foot the bill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't fool yourself, "...where even the politicians could see it was an expensive and dangerous project and cut the funds." The Politicians did cut the funds for that reason, they wanted the money somewhere else then used whatever excuse they could to make it happen. Probably some other project supported their deadbeat cousin teddy, or had more pork in it.
Well, turned out there was some criminal activity and blatant disregard for proper engineering too. I suspect that as the investigations went on, even the hardened pro nuc people were having a jaw dropping moment.
We're seeing something similar with ITER, which is delaying even more, and the price tag is getting pretty outlandish. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
We'll have total renewables long before we have fusion power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh, gee, don't bring up Fusion! Hell, that has been "10 years away" since the 70's!
Fusion pie in the sky stuff should be like cigarettes and have a mandatory label on any articles that says:
"Qin to Qout might be break even, but Qtot to Qout is around .01
Because when proponents have to lie, or conveniently not mention the 1 critical thing that would make fusion power practical, there is an incredible amount of deception.
Because until the total output of a fusion reaction is greater than the total energy put into the reactor, it simply fails.
For those not familiar - Qtot is the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, compound interest confuses you too?
Re:China installs 1 nuclear power station PER WEEK (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/sc... [abc.net.au]
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The headline is
Nuclear is mentioned a few times in the article, the only actual numbers - and they are pretty vague - I noticed are:
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear fanbois will push any and all lies they can to prop-up their dying, historic fetish tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but China's track record for sound judgement on infrastructure projects isn't the greatest. Yes, *we* should be spending more on infrastructure, and China is spending a lot more than us, but that doesn't mean we should follow their example. China builds infrastructure for national glory, not economics or social utility, so their results are hit-or-miss. Sometimes it's a rousing success [wikipedia.org], and sometimes it's a fantastically expensive boondoggle [wikipedia.org].
The problem with nuclear, as with many of these Chinese inf
Re: (Score:2)
China is installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week (5 at noon / 1 in average)
The Slashdot comment-title somehow deleted the equivalent-sign i put there.
I think that is quite impressive!
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. In that case, my apologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar has to be matched by more and more storage
That's not a given. Instead of using storage to shift supply, we can use flex-pricing to shift demand.
I currently charge my EV on cheap nighttime electricity. As solar power makes daytime power cheaper, I can shift to daytime charging. Millions of other EV owners can do the same.
Many businesses "pre-chill" their buildings with cheaper power in the morning so they can coast through the afternoon when power is more expensive.
The near future for PV doesn't look good.
People were saying that ten years ago. They were about as wrong as they could be.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar has to be matched by more and more storage
That's not a given. Instead of using storage to shift supply, we can use flex-pricing to shift demand.
I currently charge my EV on cheap nighttime electricity. As solar power makes daytime power cheaper, I can shift to daytime charging. Millions of other EV owners can do the same.
Many businesses "pre-chill" their buildings with cheaper power in the morning so they can coast through the afternoon when power is more expensive.
The near future for PV doesn't look good.
People were saying that ten years ago. They were about as wrong as they could be.
I'm not certain who you are replying to, so I'll interject here.
The storage argument some people have is silly. Storage is chemistry. We pick a process and run with it. We have storage already emplaced in many places, so it really is a non-factor.
That poster needs to come out to PA, where solar power is being installed at a rapid clip. As in right now.
My best guess is that we're going to end up with a lot of decentralized power sources of Wind and solar. We're going to have a lot of storage batte
Re: (Score:2)
Storage is increasing even faster than solar is. Even in Texas where there aren't any incentives for storage.
Re: (Score:2)
What?
So you're saying that because demand was down, somehow solar panels produced more?
That's not even remotely how that works. Solar panels produce what they produce, regardless of demand.