Home solar power becomes a brighter prospect for many

By Sarah Shemkus

May 28, 2017

Read the original article Here

Just out of view on the back side of Rob and Irene Kneeland’s Colonial house in Sutton, 28 photovoltaic panels are transforming light into power every time the sun shines.

The system came online in December. By March, the Kneelands’ monthly electric bill had dropped from $150 to $38.

“I imagine the next bill will be about zero,” Rob Kneeland said. “It appears that they’re performing as promised.”

Historically, installing solar panels was a pricey proposition — usually something only committed environmentalists with money to spend did. In recent years, however, improvements in technology, falling manufacturing costs, government incentives, and worries about the perils of fossil fuel dependence have come together to accelerate the adoption of solar technologies among everyday homeowners.

Between late 2013 and mid-2016, Massachusetts’ solar capacity more than tripled, from 362 megawatts to 1,174 megawatts, according to numbers from regional electric grid operator ISO-New England.

If you want to consider joining the surge, here’s how it works.

First, determine whether solar panels are feasible for your home. Generally, you will need a roof that isn’t facing north and doesn’t receive too much shade from the south, said Andrew Belden, senior director for renewable energy generation at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.

Your roof should also be large enough to accommodate at least 10 to 15 panels and be relatively new.

“You want to make sure you’re not going to be taking the system down in the next five years to replace your roof,” Belden said. Just about all installers will provide a free on-site assessment.

Next, study up on the basic economics of residential solar. In the past, leasing and power purchase agreements were popular ways for homeowners to get solar power. Under such arrangements, a business builds and retains ownership of a solar system then sells the energy produced to the homeowner.

But today, the price of a residential solar installation is about one-third what it was just 10 years ago, according to a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At the same time, financing options have multiplied, making straightforward ownership more economically advantageous.

“More financial institutions are familiar with solar now,” said Tom Kimbis, interim president of the Solar Energy Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group. “Today, you’ve got lots of options.”

The median price per watt of capacity for systems financed through the Mass Solar Loan Program is $4, and the median installation size is 8.1 kilowatts. Those numbers suggest a new solar system could easily run more than $30,000.

Fortunately, several programs can help defray the costs. Federal tax incentives allow you to take a credit worth 30 percent of the cost of the installation. Massachusetts also offers a tax credit of 15 percent of the remaining cost after the federal incentive has been subtracted, with a maximum value of $1,000.

Together, these credits could reduce the cost of a $30,000 system to roughly $20,000 — still a pretty hefty total. To help cover that balance, the Mass. Solar Loan Program will assist you in locating a participating bank or credit union and, for income-eligible households, it also can provide further financial assistance.

Households below 80 percent of median income — the threshold is currently $87,183 for a four-person household — are eligible for a principal reduction of 30 percent. Those below 120 percent of median income — $130,774 for a family of four – qualify for a 20 percent reduction.

Some individual communities may have further incentives — DSIRE.org maintains an updated database of renewable energy programs, state by state

Once the system is installed, ongoing savings will come from two places: net metering and solar renewable energy credits, or SRECs.

When your system is producing more power than you use, the excess electricity flows back into the grid and your meter runs backward, deducting kilowatt-hours from your usage — and your bill. This phenomenon is known as net metering.

If your power is currently delivered by a utility company, your system will almost certainly be able to take advantage of net metering. Homes served by municipal electric plants, however, may not be, so research eligibility before moving forward.

SRECs are certificates representing the environmental benefits generated by your solar system. They can be sold to companies looking to meet regulations, boost their green credentials, or offset their carbon emissions.

An 8-kilowatt system could produce as many as 10 SRECs per year and, though prices fluctuate, one SREC can sell for well over $200. While homeowners can sell their SRECs on their own, many choose to work with aggregation companies, which pool many SRECs and then sell them on behalf of their members.

Once you understand the financial basics, it is time to start shopping for an installer. If you are interested in the Mass. Solar Loan program, start with its list of prequalified businesses. Make sure to contact several installers. But limit your search to companies that are solar specialists, rather than roofers or general contractors who have added solar to their menu of services.

Ask vendors questions until you are completely satisfied with the answers, Kimbis said. He recommended asking how many systems the company has installed in your area, and requesting at least three references.

A potential installer should provide detailed cost estimates, including expected annual production, available incentives, and projections of how long the system should take to pay for itself. Be wary of companies that offer vague assurances instead of hard numbers.

An installer also should arrange for local inspections, connections to the utility, and the paperwork involved in signing you up to receive SRECs.

Finally, once you’ve chosen a company, be prepared to wait. Solar is becoming so popular that there will probably be a delay before you can schedule installation.

“Crews might be scheduling six, eight, 10 weeks out,” Belden said. “There’s a lot of solar activity going on in the state.”

Sarah Shemkus can be reached at seshemkus@gmail.com.

How the Paris Climate Agreement Could Impact the Global Solar Market

by MJ Shiao GreenTech Media
December 13, 2015

Read original article here

The news from Paris this weekend was as good as anyone hoped: world leaders signed an accord that seeks to limit global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees.

This is historic and represents a huge step for the multilateral process. But make no mistake: this is just the start of the heavy lifting.

The first major task will be ratification by individual countries. The agreement won’t come into effect until 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions ratify it. Since there are no legally binding carbon targets, the deal doesn’t have to go through the U.S. Senate  — one of the major issues that killed momentum on the Kyoto Protocol.

The carbon reduction targets will be voluntarily determined and set by individual countries. These “nationally determined contributions” will start in 2020 and will be reviewed every five years. For reference, the voluntary targets proposed in Paris put us on a path of 2.7 degrees of warming.

Some estimate that we’re close to locking ourselves into 2-degree future — meaning we need to quickly ratchet up the targets. Many are worried about the non-legally-binding nature of the targets themselves. Yet, it’s a framework and a start.

The fact that 195 countries have agreed to lower carbon emissions is a big deal. And that means more investment certainty for the solar industry.

America’s goal is to cut carbon emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Solar will definitely play a role in this this, most prominently through the Clean Power Plan, which was foundational to the submitted carbon reduction targets.

Solar and other renewables have been a key piece of broader policy efforts by the Obama administration. Over the past six months, the White House has thrown its support behind community solar, solar for low-income households, and training programs. Through initiatives like DOE’s SunShot, it continues to invest in companies working to bring down the cost of manufacturing, installation and sales.

The Obama administration has also worked with a consortium of over 150 corporations targeting emissions cuts, water-usage reduction, and renewable energy procurement. The initial 13 members, including Apple, Google, Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs, were targeting 1.6 gigawatts of new renewable procurement alone. Much of that procurement is coming from solar.

The big question on the federal level will be whether Congress can extend the Investment Tax Credit. The politics around the ITC are mostly divorced from the international climate talks, so the Paris deal likely won’t have much influence on the current horse-trading or different pathways for extension in the short term.

Globally, the result is equally unclear — but certainly positive.

Just like the U.S., most countries are vague about how they’ll achieve planned reductions. Only one country specifically calls out solar PV (Nauru, with a population of 10,000) in the summary statement of its plan. Many more call for adoption and investigation of renewables generally — the most significant being China and India’s 2030 targets for “non-fossil” electricity generation at 20 percent and 40 percent, respectively.

Similarly, Brazil hopes to get 23 percent of its electricity from non-hydro renewables by 2030. In addition, the EU will certainly count on its Renewable Energy Directive — the region-wide renewable energy targets of 20 percent by 2020 — to meet its targeted reductions.

In that sense, we will likely see additional country renewable portfolio targets emerge, providing incentives or other support mechanisms for renewables like solar.

The developed countries have the biggest reduction targets (they’re the biggest historical emitters), so that’s where most of the resulting solar development is likely to occur. However, emerging economies (Brazil, China, India and South Africa) have huge potential for policies that encourage rapid expansion as their energy footprint grows. As mentioned, India, China and Brazil all have big 2030 targets for renewable penetration.

In addition, the non-binding preamble of the Paris deal calls for $100 billion of financing commitments to help developing countries most affected by climate change. Climate finance has been a huge sticking point ever since it was proposed at Copenhagen and formalized in Cancun, sparking intense debates over how much rich countries should spend, when the money should be delivered, how it’s administered, and which projects should qualify.

This climate fund is a potential avenue for financing clean energy in nontraditional renewables markets. However, the funding hasn’t been there — only $10 billion has been pledged thus far, and half of that hasn’t actually been signed over.

Nevertheless, with the Paris convention looming, the Green Climate Fund awarded its first projects in early November. One award went to an Acumen venture fund for off-grid solar and microgrids in eastern Africa, and another for the Inter-American Development Bank to finance energy efficiency in Latin America. It still remains unclear whether these investments will scale to support large-scale renewable projects.

Outside of the negotiations, there were some non-binding initiatives being pushed, too. Paris provided a launching platform for Dubai’s plan to build solar on all roofs by 2020, the Breakthrough Energy Coalition pushed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, a parallel investment initiative by 19 countries, and an ambitious $400 million global solar alliance founded by India.

Cumulative solar installations are nearly 12 times greater globally than they were during the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009. Solar was bound to explode with or without a deal in Paris — but the new framework will undoubtedly widen the available markets for the technology.

Medway residents show interest in Solarize Mass

From The Milford Daily News

MEDWAY —The entire world consumes about 16 terawatts of energy each year, while there is currently a reserve of finite energy totaling about 900 terawatts.

On the other hand, our most powerful renewable energy source, the sun, pumps out 23,000 terawatts of energy per year – more than enough to go around.

Several dozen residents, officials and business owners turned out for Meet Your Installer night to kick off the town’s involvement in Solarize Massachusetts – a clean energy education and group-buying initiative. The town is one of 10 communities that have been chosen to participate in the first round of the 2013 Solarize Mass program – which is offered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and the Department of Energy Resources to increase the use of solar energy while reducing the price.

Edward Whitaker, president of Second Generation Energy of Hopedale, which has been selected as the town’s solar vendor, joined resident Dan Hooper, a volunteer coordinator for the program, and Elizabeth Kennedy from Mass Clean Energy Center.

Kennedy began with a presentation on solar energy, in which she addressed a question she often gets: Does Massachusetts have enough sunlight to make solar a viable energy source?

Germany has the most solar projects in the world, Kennedy said, and has less solar exposure than anywhere in the United States, including Alaska.

“If they can make it economically viable, we can too,” said Kennedy, adding that Massachusetts has one of the highest electricity costs in the country because it’s at the end of the pipeline.

Those prices will continue to go up, Kennedy said, because electrical grid infrastructure will need to be updated in the future.

Solar is environmentally and economically efficient because it not only reduces, if not eliminates, electrical bills, but there are other incentives as well.

Kennedy said the federal government provides a 30 percent tax credit for the total cost of installing a system, while the state offers a $1,000 income tax credit. Additionally, residents who install systems through Solarize Mass can receive a rebate of $2,000 to $4,000 from the Clean Energy Center.

Solarize Mass also lowers the cost for systems because it is a group-purchasing model, of which already 41 Medway residents have expressed interest.

“As more people sign up, the more you save, whether you’re the first person to sign up or the last person to sign up,” Kennedy said. “You as a homeowner really just need to sign up.”

Whitaker then offered more information on the company, which served as the installer for Solarize Mass in Millbury and Sutton last year.

He said there will be two solar options, including ownership or a third party lease, which each have their own perks.

“We’re agnostic to your ownership preference, and we think it’s a personal decision,” Whitaker said. “It really depends on your financial preference more than anything.”

Owning a system, which lasts up to 50 years, costs about $10,000 on average after deductions.

Residents and business owners can sign up for a free, full assessment by Second Generation to find out if a solar system is feasible for their property, and then they have until Sept. 30 to sign a contract.

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.