US Projected To Lead the World In New Solar Installations This Year (computerworld.com)

Lucas123 writes: The U.S. solar market is expected to grow 120% this year, with 16GW of new solar power, more than double the record-breaking 7.3GW installed in 2015. The total operating solar PV capacity in the U.S. is expected to reach 25.6 gigawatts (billion watts or GW) of direct current (DC) by the end of the year, according to GTM Research's U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review. When accounting for all projects (both distributed and centralized), solar accounted for 29.4% of new electric generating capacity installed in the U.S. in 2015, exceeding the total for natural gas for the first time and it will put the U.S. ahead of all other nations with regard to new solar installations for 2016.

Comments

What is it per person?

[houghi]

As the US is bigger than e.g. Denmark, just saying they are largest means not that much to me. Sure, it is a lot, but how much is it per person and where will they be on the list then?

And 29.4% of new energy sounds nice as well (wind was even higher with 39%), but what is it in the total amount of energy and where is the US in that (trow in wind if you like)

This reads like the average CEO presentation where a lot of numbers look nice, but mean nothing. At least not really.

So I would like to see:
1) Numbers per person.
2) Compare it to ALL of the energy (including car fuel) not only new installs

Re:What is it per person?

[110010001000]

Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING. More than 20 times the amount of the top 10 biggest spenders COMBINED. I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner. Get a grip people.

Re:What is it per person?

[penguinoid]

Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING. More than 20 times the amount of the top 10 biggest spenders COMBINED. I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner. Get a grip people.

While that is true, it is worth noting that the spending on defense is in fact the primary purpose of our federal government, it is right in the Constitution.

Spending on solar panels is not.

Isn't spending on solar the same as spending on defense, security-wise? Isn't our need for oil, and our giving tons of money to countries which hate us, one of the major reasons we need so much defense?

Energy self-sufficiency is national security.

Re:What is that in REAL wattage?

[FlyHelicopters]

Before anyone even starts, de-centralized power is in 'development' stage. I see rooftop solar as more of an energy saver/efficiency more than anything else but not a 'break even' per se. I expect most of the coal plants in the U.S. will get replaced with natural gas.

I've looked into rooftop solar three times, the most recent two months ago.

I spoke with a local solar installer. It just makes no sense, no matter how far you turn your head to the side. And that is with the federal government picking up 30% of the cost outright, plus another rebate from the local power company, plus cheap financing. It STILL makes zero sense.

You have to REALLY make a lot of assumptions about the future for it to kinda sorta make sense. As in, regular power prices will double over the next decade. And the new equipment will work for 20 years trouble free. And you'll always get net-metering. And it will add 50% of the system cost to the value of your home.

And so on. Do all that, and yea, it can make sense. But it takes ALL of that, plus the tax money, to work.

Re:Meanwhile in Indian

[Zocalo]

There's clearly a lot of spin in the article linked to by the OP, for instance, they mention that the US has a similar protectionist clause in place, but the US version is apparently OK with the WTO - yet they don't explain why that is, which is a rather crucial point. If the US had somehow manipulated the WTO into letting them do something then used the WTO to stop India doing the same that's entirely different to the US complying with WTO guidelines and India failing to do so. I also suspect there's more to it that just some Ts I simply don't believe the Indian government would scrap a multi-billion dollar project just because they couldn't be bothered to re-tender it without the problematic clause.

On the other hand, the US *does* have a track record for abusing the WTO to get what's best for the US (along with many other countries), blatantly ignoring WTO rulings that go against it (e.g. online gambling), and the main point of the article, that treaties like TPP are almost certainly going to be abused to enforce what corporates what over what's best for the population at large, is still valid, even if they possibly didn't find the best example of such abuse.