Global Solar PV Demand To Hit 31 GW In 2013, Report Forecasts

From Clean Technica

Global solar photovoltaic (PV) demand is set to advance by two gigawatts (GW) to 31GW in 2013 compared to the previous year, thanks in part to firm Chinese demand, a new report suggests.

NPD Solarbuzz projects that world PV consumption will rise by 7% on a year over year basis, with China overtaking Germany for the top spot in PV demand. The report also said 83% of the world’s PV demand will come from the top ten markets global markets.

“2013 will represent another transition year, as the PV industry adjusts to softness across legacy European markets,” according to senior NPD Solarbuzz analyst Michael Barker.

“The Chinese end-market will largely compensate for the downturn in demand from Germany, which previously led PV demand,” he said.

Much of the 2 GW increase will come from strong demand from the Asian Pacific markets, with a 50% year over year increase, thanks to China, India, and Japan providing 11 GW of solar PV demand.

Barker also suggest declining prices for solar PV systems, competitive rates due to higher electricity prices, and increasing renewable energy standards will also provide some continuous solar PV demand.

Asia’s strength will make up for Europe’s weakness, as the region is expected to see a 26% year over year drop to 12 GW installed capacity, thanks to declining incentives.

Emerging Markets: Future Room for Solar PV Growth

While traditional solar markets have been the backbone for solar PV markets, future growth could come from emerging regions, including Latin America, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia.

Emerging markets in 2013 only make up 8% of the total PV market. However, that is expected to reach 16% by 2017.

To give you an example of further potential of emerging market PV potential, in 2011, Mexico had just 37 MW of total installed PV capacity. However, laws passed in the Mexican legislature aim to have energy generation from renewables reach 35% by 2024. With 70% of the nation having insolation values more than 4.5 kWh/m2 /day, higher than most parts of solar giants Germany and Spain, Mexico could certainly be a future powerhouse in solar energy.

Overall, the trend seen with the NPD report shows continued strong growth in solar demand, despite weakness in Europe. If the trend of future growth of potential emerging markets like Mexico hold their ground, those 31 GW installed of solar energy this year are a sign of things to come.

San Francisco 49ers name SunPower ‘exclusive solar technology partner’ for the new stadium

From San Jose Mercury News

The San Francisco 49ers have vowed to make their new $1.2 billion stadium in Santa Clara the greenest in the NFL.

Toward that end, the team announced Tuesday that San Jose-based SunPower (SPWRA), Silicon Valley’s largest solar manufacturer, will be the “official and exclusive solar technology partner of the San Francisco 49ers and the new Santa Clara Stadium.”

SunPower will supply 400 kilowatts of solar panels that will help offset the power consumed by the stadium during home games. Construction of the stadium is under way, and it is slated to open in 2014.

The new facility features a variety of green and sustainable design elements, including bike parking, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, a green roof that includes a garden of native plants, locally grown produce at eateries and charging stations for electric cars.

SunPower’s solar panels will be featured in three solar array-covered bridges between the stadium and the parking lot, on a canopy above the green roof and over the 49ers training facility.

“We are pleased that SunPower’s industry-leading solar technology will be an integral part of our innovative and sustainable vision for the stadium,” 49ers CEO Jed York said in a statement. “As we strive to create a sports and entertainment venue that embodies all that is special about The Bay Area and Silicon Valley, it is fitting that SunPower, with its global headquarters less than two miles from the new stadium, will be providing us with its high-efficiency solar panels.”

“SunPower is excited to have the opportunity to help power the new stadium with clean, reliable solar power,” SunPower CEO Tom Werner said in a statement.

Solar Power Cheaper Than Nuclear In Cloudy Old England

Once again it appears that reality is interfering with the building of new nuclear power plants in the UK. As a result, it looks very unlikely that any new reactors will be built. Personally, this is a setback for me, as I am very much in favour of the building of new nuclear plants in the UK, and indeed in pretty much any country that isn’t Australia.

I favour the building of new reactors, not because nuclear power is a cheap way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — because it’s not. It’s hard to think of a more expensive way to decrease emissions that doesn’t involve linking hamster wheels in parallel to a generator. And I don’t favour the building of nuclear plants for safety reasons. While it’s much safer than coal, the small but real chance of nuclear catastrophe means that nuclear power is uninsurable by normal means. No, the reason why I am in favour of the building of new nuclear power plants is the purest of all reasons — personal greed.

You see, Australia has more uranium than you can poke a stick at. (WARNING: Do NOT poke enriched uranium with a stick.) We have the largest deposits of the stuff in the world. It’s just lying out there in the desert, doing nothing except slowly mutating rabbits that dig their burrows into it. The more nuclear plants the rest of the world builds, the more of that stuff we can dig up and send overseas far away from us, and the lower my chance of being attacked by a mutant rabbit the size of an Alsatian.

The more uranium we sell, the more prosperous Australia becomes. I’ll get to share in that prosperity and we can use the money for things that are of real importance to Australians, such as developing a Grand Theft Auto game where you get to play a good guy.

Oh, wait a minute! I just remembered that as a small, open economy, Australia’s prosperity is based upon the prosperity of the rest of the world. So if the rest of the world wastes money on nuclear power plants and potentially on cleaning up nuclear disasters, that’s no good for us. The Australian economy has already taken a hit from Fukushima, and we have no desire for that to happen again. (Although, I have to admit we did get off rather lightly compared to the Japanese.) I’ve changed my mind. Strike what I just wrote. I’m now against the building of new nuclear plants anywhere.

Don’t get me wrong, if the choice is between new nuclear and new coal, nuclear wins hands down, or even all three hands down. But, fortunately, we are not faced with that choice, and I doubt anyone would ever be stupid enough to suggest that we are. Not unless they enjoyed being laughed at. Our options are not so limited.

The projected cost of the 1,600 megawatt Hinkley Point C reactor in England is 14 billion pounds or $22 billion. That’s $13,600 per kilowatt. And just because the projected cost is $22 billion doesn’t mean that it will cost $22 billion. When one is as skilled at reading nuclearese as I am, one knows that it actually means it will cost at least $22 billion. Nuclear power plants have a tendency to go over budget in a way that is rather similar to how the ocean has a tendency to be wet.

Even in cloudy old England, the cost of electricity from rooftop solar is much cheaper than the cost of electricity from new nuclear. I realize that a certain type of person reading this may feel the need to point out that solar power doesn’t produce electricity at night. Perhaps they’ll even use one or more exclamation marks when they do, as if it’s some sort of astounding revelation that they’ve only just been struck by. This never fails to surprise me, as I’ve always thought the fact that solar power depends on the sun is sort of given away by its name. Personally, I realized the sun was required years ago. Nuclear power has a problem because rooftop solar does produce electricity during the day, which pushes the price of electricity down and makes the economics of nuclear power even worse than they currently are. And just for the benefit of that certain type of idiot, I’ll mention that there are quite a few countries without nuclear power that still manage to have electricity at night.

In the final quarter of last year in the UK, installed rooftop solar apparently cost an average of about $3.30 a watt. This is quite a bit more than in Australia, and a heck of a lot more than in Germany, but even at this price, it’s still cheaper than new nuclear. How do I know this? Well, first I looked up how much light actually makes it through all the clouds, rain, mist, smog, sleet, and pipe smoke that tends to cover England, not to mention the fleets of spaceships full of Daleks, Cybermen, and Sontarans that are queued up waiting their turn to invade the place. Then I made reasonable estimates of the costs of fuel, operations and maintenance, nuclear waste disposal, decommissioning, and government oversight and inspections…. Oh, wait a minute. I just realized there’s a certain type of nutter, sorry, I mean person, who is never going to accept my estimates for the cost of nuclear power. They’ll be frothing at the mouth and waving around “studies” on how a nuclear reactor in Japan in 1974 cost negative dollars to build and straightened teeth. How can I convince these people to trust me? I know! I’ll go to some pro-nuclear site and use their figures! How about the NEI or Nuclear Energy Institute, a U.S. nuclear lobbying group? I’m sure their site can be trusted to have reliable information!

The NEI site gives a fuel cost of 0.68 cents per kilowatt-hour for nuclear power. This seems a bit low given the current cost of uranium, but seeing how little demand there is for new reactors, it might actually end up less than this. Then they give a figure of 1.51 cents per kilowatt-hour for operations and maintenance. That’s pretty darn cheap. For decommissioning costs, they give $300-500 million per reactor. But then they immediately appear to suggest it may be $450-500 million. But let’s go for the middle of their first figure and say $400 million. And for waste disposal… well, they don’t actually give a cost for that. They just point out that, in the U.S., nuclear plants pay 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for waste disposal (without mentioning that’s not actually the cost of disposing of waste). They certainly don’t mention that $12 billion of the money that was collected was spent developing a waste disposal site that was then abandoned and that nuclear waste in the US is now just stored at nuclear plants with nowhere to go. Fortunately, this apparently poses less of a security threat than my belt buckle at an airport. But let’s give them their 0.1 cent figure. Who knows, in a few years Nuke-Away might be invented.

I can’t see any figure for government oversight and inspections, but I guess we can manage to do without that. After all, if you can’t trust a for-profit nuclear power corporation, who can you trust?

And finally, I just need one more piece of information and that’s the cost of insurance. And I see the Nuclear Energy Institute lobbying group gives a figure of…. Hmm, that’s odd. There’s no mention of the cost of insurance at all. That’s a bit of an oversight. I know that nuclear power is uninsurable in the conventional sense that no insurance company will cover it, but that doesn’t mean the cost just goes away. Even if a nuclear power plant doesn’t pay a cent of insurance, that just pushes the cost back onto society as a whole. And while the chance of a nuclear disaster is quite low, the astounding costs that can result when things turn mutant pear shaped is staggering, and so insurance costs are quite high.

A German study by Versicherungsforen Leipzig says the actual cost of insuring nuclear power ranges from $0.19 to $3.16 a kilowatt-hour or even higher. I’ll be optimistic and assume that since Hinkley Point C will be all new and shiny, it will also be super safe and so its insurance cost will be the lowest point in the range.

So, using the costs for nuclear that I got from an industry lobbying site, and adding the most optimistic estimate of insurance costs from another source, because for some reason the lobbying site didn’t mention the cost of insurance at all, I see that even with the UK’s high solar installation costs, rooftop solar in England is much cheaper than new nuclear, costing around 30 cents kilowatt-hour, with new nuclear being about 46 cents. While the cost of electricity from rooftop solar is very high compared to Australia or Germany, it is still well below the cost of new nuclear. Utility-scale solar farms are also cheaper than new nuclear, coming in at about 42 cents per kilowatt-hour, if it’s assumed they have the same installation cost as rooftop solar. Solar would be even cheaper if I took into account the fact that it can produce electricity pretty much from day one, while it can take a great many years for a nuclear plant to be completed. However, I didn’t factor this into my calculations on account of how maths is hard.

But new nuclear doesn’t get off that easily. It’s not simply 50% more expensive than rooftop solar. If the Hinkley Point C reactor goes ahead, it won’t be completed until sometime in the early 2020s at best. If the installation cost of UK solar drops as fast as it has in Germany or Australia, then in a few years, UK solar would be as cheap or cheaper than it currently is in Germany, and electricity from it would be less than half the cost of electricity from new nuclear. If solar is installed for $1 a watt by the time Hinkely Point C is operational, then rooftop solar would cost one fifth as much as new nuclear. And it’s quite possible that the cost of solar will continue to decrease while electricity from Hinkley Point C will be stuck at about 46 cents. It could well end up being the world’s most expensive albino elephant.

So, given how much electricity from new nuclear costs, my advice is don’t build new nuclear. I guarantee you can find a mix of low-emission energy sources that will do the job at a lower cost, especially if you take into account the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. Solar is likely to be an important part of the mix, but it’s not the only option, so there is no need for anyone but idiots to worry about the fact that the sun doesn’t shine all the time or that batteries are expensive.

World Solar PV Capacity Surpasses 100 Gigawatts in 2012

This bright news below brings the message that people are changing, things are changing. From a statement released in Brussels yesterday we find that the world’s cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts (GW) in 2012, achieving just over 101 GW. This is according to new market figures from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). “A landmark year,” EPIA called it. Indeed!

Wonderful to find that it’s not just speeches and pleas for change, that there is change in the works. The sun is the source of energy the world is harnessing without depletion or toxicity to a greater and greater extent. And 2012 was another strong year for the solar industry (following a very strong in in 2011). More than 30 GW of PV were connected to the electricity grid in 2012, EPIA added. And there was a sort of balancing out in where that solar power was installed. Non-European markets increased their installations and accounted for more than 13 GW of the worldwide total.

Harnessing the Power of the Sun

“This global capacity to harness the power of the sun produces as much electricity energy in a year as 16 coal power plants or nuclear reactors of 1 GW each. Each year, the world’s PV installations reduce CO2 emissions by 53 million tons,” EPIA wrote.

“The surpassing of the 100-GW mark occurred in yet another year of strong global PV development, with an estimated 30 GW connected to the grid and made operational in 2012 – roughly the same as the record-setting level of 2011. These results are preliminary, and the 30 GW figure could be increased by an additional 1 or 2 GW when final numbers come in. Final results for the year will be published in May, in EPIA’s annual “Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013-2017.”

We are seeing the doable, absolutely necessary changes that I am sure Connie Hedegaard is counting a happiness, along with CleanTechnica, the rest of Europe, and our whole small planet. We seek more efforts such as this to be the norm.

“No one would have predicted even 10 years ago that we would see more than 100 GW of solar photovoltaic capacity in the world by 2012,” said EPIA President Winfried Hoffmann. “The photovoltaic industry clearly faces challenges but the results of 2012 show there is a strong global market for our technology. Even in tough economic times and despite growing regulatory uncertainty, we have nearly managed to repeat the record year of 2011.”

Here’s to Jumping to Speed of Light with Renewable Energy

As noted above, outside of Europe (the solar leader to date), there was important solar growth. The year showed an important “shift towards a more global PV market,” EPIA wrote, “with 13 GW of PV installations occurring outside of Europe (compared to just under 8 GW in 2011) and nearly 17 GW in Europe (compared to nearly 23 GW in 2011). The top three European PV markets in 2012 were Germany (with 7.6 GW), Italy (3.3 GW) and France (1.2 GW). The top three non-European markets were China (with at least 3.5 GW and possibly as much as 4.5 GW), the U.S. (3.2 GW) and Japan (2.5 GW).”

Added Hoffmann, “The key going forward will be to address these new market challenges and continue policies that help PV technology to grow sustainably, continuing its evolution to a mainstream electricity source.”

It seems that everyone is jumping to speed up with this, and unlike other types of energy, there are no serious downsides to solar. The speed of light is the kind of pace and change we do need. Light is light is light, and who does not need more light?

Read more at Clean Technica

U.S. Solar Will Eclipse Wind in 2013, Says Duke Energy

The U.S. will add more solar power in 2013 than wind energy for the first time as wind projects slump and cheap panels spur demand for photovoltaic systems, according to the head of Duke Energy Corp. (DUK)’s renewable-energy development unit.

The U.S. may install 3 gigawatts to 4 gigawatts of wind turbines this year, and solar projects will probably exceed that, said Gregory Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables. The U.S. added 13.1 gigawatts of wind power last year, beating natural gas for the first time.

U.S. wind projects have come to a near-standstill this year on uncertainty over the fate of a federal tax credit that was set to expire Dec. 31. Wolf anticipates more solar projects going into operation in 2013 than wind farms after panel prices fell more than 60 percent in the last two years.

“I would expect a lot of momentum still on solar,” Wolf said in an interview yesterday.

“We really ramped up our solar in 2010,” said Wolf. “Today most of the projects are half or less of the cost now than then.” Duke Renewables’ portfolio of renewable-energy projects exceeds 1.7 gigawatts.

The production tax credit, which provides 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity from wind farms, was extended for a year on Jan. 1. With little information about whether it would be renewed, developers raced to complete wind farms by the end of last year and didn’t plan new ones.

The U.S. installed about 3.2 gigawatts of solar power last year and may reach 3.9 gigawatts this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Cheap panels and lower construction costs have been aided by policy support that “has been a little more consistent and long-term,” Wolf said.

‘Green Halo’

Duke invested more than its $500 million target in renewable energy last year, and more than $2.5 billion to date, Wolf said.

“We’re not in this business just because we want a green halo for Duke,” he said.

The largest U.S. utility owner by market value enters into long-term power purchase agreements for wind and solar plants that have “an attractive profile in terms of risk and returns,” Wolf said. “If we find really good projects, we’ll see if we can find a way to make them work.”

New Report Shows That Texas Wind And Solar Are Highly Competitive With Natural Gas

An interesting fact seemed to go unnoticed in all the press around the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’s (ERCOT) Long Term System Assessment, a biennial report submitted to the Texas Legislature on “the need for increased transmission and generation capacity throughout the state of Texas.” ERCOT found that if you use updated wind and solar power characteristics like cost and actual output to reflect real world conditions, rather than the previously used 2006 assumed characteristics, wind and solar are more competitive than natural gas over the next 20 years.  This might seem a bit strange since we’ve been told for years by renewable energy skeptics that wind and solar power can’t compete with low natural gas prices. Let me back up a second and explain what’s going on here, and what it means for both the energy crunch and Texas’ ongoing drought.

Every two years since 2005, ERCOT has used a series of complex energy system models to model and estimate future conditions on the Texas electric grid.  This serves a critical function for legislators, utilities and regulators and others who need to prepare for changes as our electric use continues to expand and evolve.  As with any model of this kind, the assumptions are critical: everything from the price of natural gas, to the cost to build power plants and transmission lines. Facing an acute energy crunch and given that solar and wind costs have come down a great deal since the first study in 2006, ERCOT dug a little deeper into their historical assumptions and developed a version of the model that used current, real-world cost and performance data for wind and solar power.

What they found was astounding: without these real-world data points, ERCOT found that 20,000 MW of natural gas will be built over the next 20 years, along with a little bit of demand response and nothing else.  Once they updated their assumptions to reflect a real-world scenario (which they call “BAU with Updated Wind Shapes”) ERCOT found that about 17,000 MWs of wind units, along with 10,000 MW of solar power, will be built in future years.

In addition to demonstrating the economic viability of renewable energy, these results show two drastically different futures: one in which we rely overwhelmingly on natural gas for our electricity, and one in which we have a diverse portfolio of comparable amounts of renewable energy (which does not use water) and natural gas.  All of this is crucial to keep in mind as the Legislature, the Public Utility Commission and ERCOT evaluate proposals to address resource adequacy concerns and the impacts of a continuing drought on our state’s energy supply.

Finally, one ERCOT statement in particular stands out from this analysis, in direct contradiction to renewable energy opponents who say that renewable energy is too expensive: “the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year].”  This means that when real-world assumptions are used for our various sources of power, wind and solar are highly competitive with natural gas. In turn, that competition from renewables results in lower power prices and lower water use for Texas.

As state leaders look for ways to encourage new capacity in the midst of a drought, it’s important to realize that renewable energy is now competitive over the long term with conventional resources.  The fact that renewable energy resources can reduce our water dependency while hedging against higher long-term prices means that however state leaders decide to address the energy crunch, renewables need to be part of the plan.

This commentary was originally posted on EDF’s Energy Exchange blog.

EnergyTrend: Solar PV market may exceed expectations in 1Q 2013

TrendForce’s EnergyTrend division released a new analysis which indicates that the global solar photovoltaic (PV) industry is likely to perform better than previously expected during the first quarter of 2013.

EnergyTrend notes the role of increasing demand in Japan due to an expectation of reduced incentives beginning in April 2013. The company also expects increased shipments from Chinese vendors in advance of potential EU tariffs, and growth in multiple markets including the United States.

“In addition to the changes experienced by the European and Japanese markets, the rise of China’s domestic solar market, along with the growth experienced by the US market following increased subsidies for the green energy industry, are all contributing to the growing demand in the PV market,” states EnergyTrend.

“The recent subsidies intended for PV development in New York and Los Angeles, the emphasis on the use of renewable energy resources by US President Barrack Obama, and the large US power plant investments are also important factors that, according to relevant vendors, are continuing to reinforce PV market momentum.”

“With the above factors taken into account, the prospects for the solar market in 2013, on the whole, remain largely optimistic.”

Polysilicon, monocrystalline wafer prices climb

The company also observed an increase in spot prices this week across the PV value chain, with polysilicon and monocrystalline silicon wafer prices growing the most.

Polysilicon spot prices increased 5.8% to USD 16.89 per kg, which it credits to the positive prospect of the market. The company notes that these prices have grown particularly strongly in China in anticipation of anti-US and anti-EU duties, to between USD 20.07 and 20.88 per kg.

Volkswagen of America plugs into solar farm

Volkswagen is making das auto a bit greener. The automaker has begun using a 33-acre solar farm adjacent to its Chattanooga manufacturing facility to power up to 12.5 percent of the plant’s needs during full production and 100% off production. VW’s embrace of solar power will reduce its operating costs over the long term.

The automaker’s U.S. subsidiary announced that the farm went live in a press release issued yesterday. VW signed a 20-year contract to buy the electricity, earning it the distinction of being the first automaker to earn a LEED Platinum certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

“We are proud to power up the biggest solar park of any car manufacturer in North America today. The solar park is another proof point of Volkswagen’s worldwide commitment to environmental protection under its ‘Think Blue.,” said Frank Fischer, CEO and chairman of Volkswagen Group of America. “Factory’ philosophy, a broadly focused initiative for all Volkswagen plants to achieve more efficient use of energy, materials and water and produce less waste and emissions.”

The panels will produce nearly 13.1 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, which would power 1,200 local homes for an entire year, Volkswagen says. VW’s 1.9 million square foot plant produces the Passat sedan, employing over 3,000 workers. While VW is lowering its manufacturing costs, it is not alone in its quest for greater sustainability, which also affects its bottom line. U.S. energy costs have been rising annually.

Last summer, Ford pledged a 25% reduction in the energy its uses in automaking by 2016. Ford has already cut the power required to produce each vehicle in its global factories by 22 percentsince 2006.