Big increase for US solar in 2016: Report
 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/big-i...-2016_report_1

The U.S.'s solar power capacity continues to grow after more than two gigawatts (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations took place during the second quarter of 2016, according to a report released on Monday.

The latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) stated that the installations represented a 43 per cent increase compared to the second quarter of 2015.

"We're seeing the beginning of an unprecedented wave of growth that will occur throughout the remainder of 2016, specifically within the utility PV segment," Cory Honeyman, associate director of U.S. solar research at GTM Research, said in a news release.

Solar is becoming an increasingly important part of the world's renewable energy mix. In 2014 the International Energy Agency stated that the sun could be the planet's biggest source of electricity by 2050.

"With more than 10 gigawatts of utility PV currently under construction, the second half of this year and the first half of 2017 are on track to continue breaking records for solar capacity additions," Honeyman added.

The report found that utility scale installations represented 53 percent of all installed PV in the first half of 2016, with an extra 7.8 GW set to come online in 2016.

"Solar works in all 50 states and this report proves that what many would consider non-traditional markets are now firmly a part of the clean energy movement," Tom Kimbis, SEIA's interim president, said.

"While it took us 40 years to hit 1 million U.S. solar installations, we're expected to hit 2 million within the next two years," Kimbis added. "That record-breaking growth is made possible by solar's cost-competitiveness and the vast benefits it provides consumers, our nation's economy and environment."

I've been glad to see the efficiency has been increasing rapidly as well. That makes it a much more viable option even in areas that don't get tons of sun all the time.

It's just too bad that it's taken this long to get enough clout to really make technological improvements.

It used to be stupid rare to see a house with solar around here. Now it's merely uncommon.

I've been hit multiple times with people calling me to install in. Unfortunately, we've had water leak issues with our roof, which we fixed at significant cost in both money and emotional turmoil (made my wife a wreck), so I'm NOT ****ING TOUCHING THAT ROOF.

We have had a good run of bad luck with hail storms around here for the last few years, so I know all too well about the roof replacement. I have a feeling those solar panels would die a fast death when confronted with large hail stones as well.

Tesla is making a "Gigafactory" outside of Reno. Most people may have heard about this and how it relates to their vehicle line, but they are also making a battery for homes. It's thought that the home battery will be around $3,000 for consumers, and will finally make sense financially.

I'm sure there are many of you out there that know more about this stuff than me, but apparently the Tesla home battery will enable you to store the surplus solar energy to use at other times.

From what I've read at least, they're actually pretty durable. The solar cell themselves are fragile, but they're covered in a thick piece of clear laminate that protects them pretty well.

Industry standard is withstanding the impact of a 1" hail stone traveling 100 mph.

An old boy down the road had some that got smoked by the last hail storm, but his stuff was really really old. It would be nice if technology has caught up and they are making them more durable these days which wouldn't surprise me.

Heh the last storm was brutal. We had golf ball to just under baseball size hail smack us. As far as speed, hell if I know, I didn't go outside to find out!! :D

Ha! Probably a good choice. Industry standard for human skull durability is well under baseball size.

I read we just got 2 new gigawatts of juice. If memory serves we could use 1.2 gigawatts to go back in time and advance Solar research

I had solar panels installed last month. It will pay for itself in about 6 years. So far it is producing more than we are using which is amazing since my Wife has turned our house into a meat locker with the A/C.

Yes, San Diego has no shortage of sun. Here in Seattle, solar power is pretty much non-existent.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...map-USA-en.png

A school just south of here lost their entire array in the spring. Bob Dole has been researching, but his future co-op won't buy the excess.

Moore's Law, bruh.

Good to hear it's progressing.

Still far,far behind of what is should be.

Hope see solar in the sun states, wind in the windy states etc,etc.

Renewable needs to be the majority not the rarity, especially when it comes to cars.

Cars on 100% renewable would neuter the middle east.

This country needs nuclear energy..

There has been a push by companies that the government was helping to help finance adding solar to peoples homes in unique financing deals.

Solar City, Vivant Solar and Xoom Solar are have pushed creative leasing and power purchase arrangements that have made their own financial standing a little shaky.

Going to be interesting to see if the subsidies are going to be renewed.

Depends on who gets elected POTUS and what happens in congress.

i love stories like this:

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3059918/...ople-to-use-it

Solar City was purchased by Tesla.

As I've detailed in past threads, Solar City could only save me $300 per year, so I passed.

The Tesla battery seems to be the way to go.

You've got that right even for a hard head like myself. ROFL

Check out Denmark for more stories you will love! They have been selling excess electricity from wind generators to Germany, Sweden, and Norway. It's very exciting to see the progress, and I have firsthand knowledge of some of the advances since my cousin over in Denmark is the CEO of a very successful energy company, EnergiDanmark.

I know a couple of guys making well north of 200k a year selling solar. Maybe it's time to switch gears and start selling solar.

http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california

There are currently more than 2,754 solar companies in California, employing 75,598.

We run 80% solar at my house with two AC units and a pool. Saves me over $500 a year in electric bills, which includes factoring in our lease. Plus were are locked in with this rate while the electric companies continue to jack up their prices. So we will save more each year in the long run.

Once we get a new pool pump and more efficient AC units, we will likely be near 100%.

WINNING.

For people out in some rural area not connected to the grid, this could make sense. For somebody connected to the grid with solar, I'm not sure the cost of the battery versus the amount of storage is going to make financial sense.

Renewables would really be helped by having more long distance, high voltage lines. Instead of trying to store excess wind that is generated in the Kansas wind corridor, it should be shipped east. However, eastern utilities have lobbied against new lines (they don't want the competition) and it is always a hard fight to overcome NIMBYism with power lines.

Yeah no doubt.

You want to accelerate the improvements of solar? Pass a law that says that any new big box store must have that flat roof covered in panels and be (as close as possible right now) self-sufficient. This would create a large market which would add more money into the industry and help push innovation. This would not be a noticeable cost to customers but should help to push overall costs of panels down just due to the increased volume.

I think the average residential install has a payoff of around 6 years. Many businesses much sooner.

Nuclear is good as dead. Being propped up currently and the future looks uneventful.

Depends on your energy market. Makes loads of sense in Australia, Hawaii, etc.

we were two steps from signing up with our power company for free solar. no up front costs. the only thing was, you had to sign a contract that you would use them as the host for the energy we produced. we backed out at the last minute. was uneasy not knowing enough about different schemes. just cant afford the upfront costs for solar on our own atm.

In the US. Not in Europe.

Hydraulic fracking already has. The new low price for oil is the price where it becomes profitable to frack it out in North America. SA basically drained their treasury trying to put the NA oil fracking companies out of business.

Also petro is not going away it is used for many many other things.

Efficiency in production and cost are hurdles but are definitely improving.

The major obstacle making it tough in all forms is the lack of "energy ice cubes" or batteries in addition to problems in transmission of the energy that is created. Solar and wind production are both problematic in that the peak production times aren't typically in line with peak use.

I'm glad to see improvement but it is still detrimental to our country to move away from coal and nuclear. Clean Coke and natural gas still need support and development if we want to be energy independent.

It would be outstanding if we could get to the point where solar or wind were legitimate for single home use and was reliable.

Do that British shit where they pump water to a high elevation before peak time and then release it during peak hours to power water turbines.

So government should FORCE solar on corporations even if it costs them 5 x's as much as traditional?

Not feasible, not reasonable, not democratic and not capitalist.

Corporations by nature will seek the best and most cost effective solution. If solar doesn't cut it they will look at other options.

at the cost of being able to set our tap water on fire and risking contaminating our water table permanently

I'm not going to start a big to-do with you, but Moore's law is specific to the fundamental physics underlying transistor fabrication limitations.

I hate being pedantic about it, but people have these unrealistic expectations about innovation based on our finally harnessing the size and speed of electrons that don't translate to harnessing other physical capabilities.

I appreciate good news on affordability and performance in solar and storage technology, but we are still in the infancy of seeing how it all develops. How many of these numbers are predicated on artificial subsidies and rosy predictions needs time to verify.

I'd need to see the numbers on that, particularly how much is coming from incentives. Just 2 years ago our EE senior class tasked everyone with coming up with an estimate for insolation. Payback hovered in the area of 15-17 years. My team came up with a plan that paid back with then current incentives in 12 years and we were interrogated six ways to Sunday vetting our methods and calculations.

Also important to remember, there's payback and then there's payback. A big portion of your upfront is your inverter and most inverters have a 15-year operating life, which means that every 15 years expect a sizeable portion of your upfront costs to recur.

MoF, a big key in our shorter payback window was that is we went with small inverters with a shorter life span but much lower cost on each panel instead of one big expensive inverter for the entire installation.

Sure, the batteries make sense in a few niche places.

I would say it is on life support in Europe also. Germany is closing all of their nuclear plants. The recent plants that are under construction (with the newer style technology) are way over budget even by nuclear power plant standards.

The UK is contemplating approving a plant that is already estimated to cost $20 billion (this is before overruns).

So, I would imagine it would be smart to invest in Solar?

I've never invested and know next to nothing about the stock market, but have recently decided to start educating myself in prep to get started.

Would this be a promising opportunity to begin that venture with?

Yup. For now. Just like solar used to be. Now solar works in all 50 states. Batteries soon will too. As Hamas said, Moore's Law.

I think that's a tough question to answer. On the one hand, the trend is solidly pointing in the direction of renewable energy, so one would think that solar and wind companies are only going to get bigger in the coming years.

On the other hand, as some have alluded to, the industry has been heavily supported by government subsidies in recent years, and it's likely that at least some companies might be in financial trouble quickly if those subsidies went away.

I think that solar and wind as TECHNOLOGIES are poised for rapid growth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that individual BUSINESSES are stable enough to survive on their own.

the government forces you to: pay taxes, carry health insurance, car insurance, do the speed limit, take care of your kids. why not force an over rich corporation to pay for solar. its not like they are paying THEIR taxes :D

the government could easily offset solar costs for benefits down the track.

Amazingly enough there are places where oil and natural gas seep out of ground naturally. Parts of PA have recorded instances of water being light on fire since the 1700s long before there was any fracking or even oil wells there.

As for renewables, those rare earth metals for batteries and solar panels. Well, they have to be mined and they come from mines like this:

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1240x826/k_n/mining.jpg

France: 77% Nuclear.
Germany is closing their nuke plants not because they are losing money or not cost effective but by pure government fiat driven by hysterical overreactions to Fukushima.
Sweden is looking to online more nuclear power and it already provides 40+% of their power.
Finland is getting 30% of its power from nuclear and is looking to online two new reactors.
Spain is looking to build more nuke plants as their experiment with solar was costly and didn't provide power.

Not in Europe:

South Korea wants to build more nuclear reactors and they get a third of their power from nuclear.
Japan is reonlining their nuclear plants after shutting them down after Fukushima.

Basically, you have countries decomissioning nuke plants to appease hysteria not because they are inefficient or of any danger.

pos rep... i always rail about how 'recycling plants' are ran off coal, neglected to think the production of solar devices does the same.

its very scary to think no matter how green the tech, the tech is produced by coal.

If you all are interested in a complete and total FUBAR regarding energy issues, check out what's happened here in cluster****, Nebraska with our Nuclear plant up in Ft. Calhoun.

Quick synopsis...
Floods hit,
Almost a half a billion spent by our publicly owned power company to repair nuke plant.
Can't fix it for shit but they had it up and running for a little bit. **** it, shut it down because Derp.

Meanwhile, if you drive across Iowa, you'll see thousands of windmills.
Drive across ****ville, you'll see a few hundred in "testing areas."

Ok, life support was a bit of an exaggeration, but I would still say it is in retreat.

I'm not knee-jerk opposed to nuclear, but I don't think there are very many countries that can build both safe and economical plants. New plants in the US are very expensive and despite spending billions, we still don't have a long term plan for the waste outside of knowing it will be many billions more.

Japan can't run a safe system and I thought that long before Fukushima. Neither can Russia and, given the level of general corruption, I expect big problems from China someday. I don't have warm, fuzzy feelings about South Korea building a lot of plants either.

I thought it was dumb of German to take so many plants off line that otherwise would have years of service. Yes, it was a reaction. Political backlash is a big part of the problem with nuclear.

France is the one country that seems to do a good job, but I am skeptical that they will maintain their 75% at a reasonable cost going forward. EDF, the main French company, is struggling to build the new designs.

Let's look at one of the plants they are trying to build in Finland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(n..._.28Finland.29

First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant on 6 December 2007. As the name implies this will be the third nuclear reactor on the Flamanville site and the second instance of an EPR being built. Electrical output will be 1630 MWe (net)[6] and the project involves around €3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EDF.
...
In September 2015 EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018.

The Hinkley POint plant in the UK is a boondoggle and they haven't even started construction. Even though the gaurentees are unreal, EDF was so worried about, their board barely approved the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle..._power_station

The construction cost was given by EDF as £16 billion in 2012,[66] updated to £18 billion in 2015. (And this is before cost overruns...)

In February 2016, EDF again delayed a final decision on proceeding with the project, disclosing that the financial agreement with CGN was yet to be confirmed. EDF, which had recently reported a 68% fall in net profit, was still looking at how it would finance its share of the project. With EDF's share price having halved over the preceding year, the cost of the Hinkley Point C project now exceeded the entire market capitalisation of EDF. EDF stated that "first concrete", the start of actual construction, was not planned to begin until 2019

The National Audit Office estimated that, with UK wholesale electricity prices having fallen to £45/MWh, the additional cost to consumers of 'future top-up payments under the proposed HPC CfD have increased from £6.1 billion in October 2013, when the strike price was agreed, to £29.7 billion in March 2016',[9] a quadrupling of the projected costs to consumers. As such the fixed strike price of HPC subjects the consumers to a risk that they will not benefit from future reductions in electricity prices.

In August 2016, CEO Henrik Poulsen of DONG Energy argued that the UK's future energy needs can be covered with accelerated construction of cheaper offshore wind farms instead of Hinkley Point C. Poulsen state that wind farms could currently undercut HPC's strike price with £85/MWh, while others in the industry believe that by the mid-2020s the electricity price from offshore wind farms would reach £80/MWh.

On 10 August 2016, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph wrote that, with growth in energy storage, 'there ceases to be much point in building costly "baseload" power plants such as Hinkley Point. Nuclear reactors cannot be switched on and off as need demands - unlike gas plants. They are useless as a back-up for the decentralized grid of the future, when wind, solar, hydro, and other renewables will dominate the power supply'.

The tech is not expensive. The self-imposed governmental documentation and compliance procedures are expensive.

Anyone catch the Tesla/SolarCity solar roof unveiling? It looks pretty damn nice. I'll be curious to see what the costs really are, but I'm due for a roof in the next 3-5 years probably and will have to at least dig into this as an option.

<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/189402941" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

In short for those who don't want to take the time to watch, there are 4 different styles to choose from and operate at up to 98% efficiency of a normal solar panel. In theory the cost of solar roof will be less than the cost of new normal roof PLUS electric costs over expected life (so still a big up-front investment that is probably justified through financing). Regardless, they look fantastic.

http://i.imgur.com/yXzljxY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/HXFVsL4.png

https://www.tesla.com/solar

You would think that Musk would be a better speaker.

Get the man a teleprompter or something


terrible

In a weird way, it's actually a feature I like about him. He's not in it to be a salesman. He's in it to put something so awesome in front of you that it sells itself.

Yea, that's probably why they do it that way.


He really is a lead innovator of our time.

We need more like him.

I love it. I hate polished salesman. Can't trust them. I prefer someone who tells me what they know, and verifies information in real time. It's easier to tell if you're getting greased.

You give me a couple billion and I'll give it a shot. What say you? You in?

Sure but not knowing what to say next is unnecessary

Having him not be in sync with the video is unnecessary

Musk saying "so ... umm ... yea ... why would you do anything else" about 20 times during the video just because he couldn't think of anything else to say is annoying

Musk being down to earth is great, mumbling like a 9th grader doing a presentation about volcanic rocks is not.

Lots of billionaires out there that don't give a shit about making the world at better place. In fact i would say that most don't.

Imagine if we had say 10 billionaires doing what Musk is now?

Right now we have like 2 ... Musk and Gates.

Gates is focusing on 3rd world countries getting water i think.

I generally agree that he could be a little more polished, but I think he just doesn't really value the benefit of it. He'd rather be working on fun stuff than selling people on it.

Gates is doing a shit ton more than that, but yes, he's generally working to improve extreme poverty in the world and reduce infectious diseases.

thats awesome. i can guarantee here it would five times the cost of a regular roof. but this is the same product i have been waiting for to hit the market.

I think he's great.

just nitpicking :D

Iowa produces around 35% of our power by wind.