Solar Is Top Source of New Capacity On the US Grid In 2016 (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. electric grid continued to transform in 2016. No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity. Combined with wind, a small bit of hydro, and the first nuclear plant added to the grid in decades, sources that generate power without carbon emissions accounted for two-thirds of the new capacity added in 2016. These numbers come from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which asked utilities about what sources they expected to have online at the end of the year. These numbers typically show a burst of activity in December, as projects are raced to completion to take advantage of the tax benefits of reaching operational status in the current year. Overall, the EIA recorded 26 GW of new capacity added to the grid in 2016. This includes a small amount (0.3GW) of new hydropower and a smattering of projects collected under "other" that produce a similar magnitude. Notably absent from the list is coal. Also absent is distributed solar, meaning panels installed on homes and other small-scale projects. Distributed solar accounted for about 2GW of new capacity in 2015, and the EIA notes that the incentives for these projects haven't changed considerably in 2016. Even without that 2GW, solar comes out on top, with 9.5GW of new additions this year. At 8GW, natural gas comes in second place on the EIA's list, followed by wind at 6.8GW. Thanks to the opening of a new reactor at Watts Bar in Tennessee, nuclear also joins the list for the first time in years, adding 1.1GW of capacity. Combined, wind, nuclear, hydro, and solar account for 68 percent of the new additions, making 2016 a low-carbon year for the U.S. grid. Assuming distributed solar this year is similar to its 2015 levels, the percentage of new non-fossil generation goes up above 70.

Comments

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[110010001000]

Is he going to get me a jerb too?

Total Capacity

[cirby]

Not total delivered.

So when you see that 9.5 gigawatts of solar compared to 8 gigawatts of natural gas, it's more like 3 gigawatts of average solar output versus 7 gigawatts of gas...

Re:Total Capacity

[tomhath]

Watts Bar 2 nuclear plant will probably produce more power than that solar "capacity".

Re:Total Capacity

[Solandri]

They're playing some tricks with the numbers to get capacity factors close to 0.3, which is physically impossible unless all your PV panels are super-high efficiency and track the sun. But this isn't the sort of thing you can just cover up. It's trivial to calculate the actual capacity factor for PV solar:

• Installed peak capacity at the end of 2014 and 2015 was 18,173 MW and 25,459 MW respectively. So figure average capacity for 2015 was (25459 + 18173)/2 = 21,816 MW.
• PV solar generation for 2015 was 23,232 GWh.
• There are 8766 hours in a year (factoring in leap years).
• (23232 GWh) / (21.816 GW * 8766 hours) = 0.121 capacity factor.

So that 9.5 GW of solar capacity is only generating about 1.15 GW of power on average. If you add the 2 GW of distributed solar (rooftop panels) it works out to 1.39 GW average generation.

Natural gas is a bit of a wild card, since it (and hydro) is typically used to follow peaking demand. That is, you don't run them full tilt. They top off power generation to match demand. But its (and hydro's) capacity factor is historically around 0.40. So NG's 8 GW translates into 3.2 GW of average generation. Hydro's 0.3 GW translates into 0.12 GW of average generation.

Wind's capacity factor is about 0.25. So its 6.8 GW capacity works out to 1.7 GW of average generation.

Nuclear's capacity factor is about 0.9. So the lone new nuclear plant at 1.1 GW capacity translates into 1 GW of average generation.

So in terms of actual power generation:

• Gas = 3.2 GW
• Wind = 1.7 GW
• PV solar = 1.15 GW (or 1.39 GW)
• Nuclear = 1.0 GW
• Hydro = 0.12 GW

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

> Watts Bar 2 nuclear plant will probably produce more power than that solar "capacity".

Don't forget the dangers of solar energy production.
I can barely sleep at night worrying about the possibility of a solar leak.
A major solar spill could have a serious affect on the environment.
And I don't even want to think about a solar meltdown!

Re:Total Capacity

[K. S. Kyosuke]

to get capacity factors close to 0.3, which is physically impossible unless all your PV panels are super-high efficiency

How did you conclude that panel efficiency impacts capacity factors? That doesn't make sense. Efficiency as a multiplier scales both maximum and average generation from a unit of insolated surface. The ratio of these two therefore shouldn't change (modulo possible spectral sensitivity effects for direct insolation vs. overcast for the different technologies, but these aren't in any simple way connected to overall efficiency).

Re: Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

thousands of acres dedicated to solar panels, and still not enough to power the gpu farms we need searching fot those comet fragments before the next extinction event.

Re:Total Capacity

[WolfWithoutAClause]

No, actually pretty similar on average; the solar may even edge it. The nuclear reactor obviously has higher power at night, but much lower power during the day than the solar. The average capacity factor of solar is about 10-20% depending on location, so 9GW of solar will produce somewhere between 0.9GW and 1.8GW on average, whereas this is a 1.2GW reactor; and the solar was installed much, much more quickly, and probably cost roughly the same or even less than the nuclear.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas plant capacity isn't high.

In 2015 the US had 503963.9 MW of gas generation capacity - http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

Which supplied 1,333,482 thousand MWh of electricity - http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

For a capacity factor of 30.19%.

TL;DR: We have a shit-ton of gas peaker plants that sit around idle most of the time.

Re:Total Capacity

[pointybits]

They're playing some tricks with the numbers to get capacity factors close to 0.3, which is physically impossible unless all your PV panels are super-high efficiency and track the sun. But this isn't the sort of thing you can just cover up. It's trivial to calculate the actual capacity factor for PV solar:

• Installed peak capacity at the end of 2014 and 2015 was 18,173 MW and 25,459 MW respectively. So figure average capacity for 2015 was (25459 + 18173)/2 = 21,816 MW.
• PV solar generation for 2015 was 23,232 GWh.
• There are 8766 hours in a year (factoring in leap years).
• (23232 GWh) / (21.816 GW * 8766 hours) = 0.121 capacity factor.

Yeah sure, there's a conspiracy to cover up the real numbers. Or, you know, you might have botched your calculations. You took the solar output from large utilities only and divided it by the total solar capacity including distributed generation.

Solar capacity factors of >25% are relatively easy in the sun belt and can go as high as 36% with tracking and a high panel-to-inverter ratio (Lawrence Berkely study, 2014 figures).

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Of all the energy sources by carbon footprint the ones with the lowest emissions per energy produced are wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Solar doesn't even make the top five.

Solar is a loser on "death footprint", carbon footprint, and cost. Since geothermal, wind, tidal, and hydro require favorable geography nuclear really wins out here. This is especially true since solar is just as dependent on favorable weather and geography as the others I listed. If you want to dispute the carbon footprint stats then that's fine, I'll concede that if you want to dispute it but only to a point. Nuclear is still a "zero carbon" energy source as defined by whatever definition that also includes wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or tidal. If you claim that nuclear is not "zero carbon" then solar isn't either. If you want to fear monger on nuclear power then you need to do so knowing all the facts.

I'm sure thinking of dead solar power workers will make you sleep better at night. Now go sleep on that.

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

How did you conclude that panel efficiency impacts capacity factors?

A more efficient PV cell is easier to activate under low light. It takes a certain level of light to get a PV cell to overcome it's internal resistance, if this resistance can be lowered then it can operate through a larger part of the day. If the PV cell can operate through a longer period in the day then the capacity factor increases.

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

First of all the capacity factor is not related to efficiency.
If I produce 1GW with a 4GW panel because it is only 25% efficient has nothing to do with the capacity factor which is basically only the number of sun hours per year.
Furthermore in your bullshit calculation it would make much more sense to use GWh produced, and not GW 'adjusted to capacity factor' because in full sunlight a 4 GW solar panel will surprisingly produce: 4GW, hence the nameplate.

Bottom line: you should stop using metrics from which you don't know how to use them properly.

Hint: when do you need most power? When does the solar plant deliver its most power? Then again: how much power do you need at night? Are you confident your gas or nuclear plant is actually utilized when most people are sleeping, or is it powered down? Just as the solar plant is? Hu?

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

It does not really matter if you fall from the roof cleaning a solar panel or cleaning a chimney.
Both can be avoided by following safety standards.

The carbon footprint of solar panels approaches zero. The only carbon dioxide produced is basically the transportation of raw material and finalized products to the installation place! If you take that into account then the carbon footprint of nuclear plants are a nightmare. They produce over their life span nearly the same amount as a similar coal plant does.

All power plants, that includes nuclear plants, need a favorable place. The main reason why Germany did mot build more â" before the decision to abolish them â" is that Germany has no space left where we could build one. Except the option to upgrade an existing one with another reactor.

Same for France btw. That is the main reason France is buying so much power from Germany and in parallel is investing in renewables. Climate change is hitting Germany and France noticeable already: less snow in winter means far less water in summer in the rivers. Which means: shut down nuclear plants due to environmental regulations regarding temperature of water in the rivers. Or simple lack of water.

Geothermal btw, does not really need special places. You only need to bore deep enough. Ofc. it is fun to have geysers in front of the house ...

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually at peak the solar plant will deliver its 9.5 peak. Same for the gas plant ... and the gas plant has no CF of 100% either, unless it is a base load plant then it likely runs at 95% power output with enough down time to have a CF of about 90%.
In real life a gas plant will be at absolute minimum at night, barely producing power, and load following between roughly 9AM till 5PM or 7AM and 7PM at decision of the operators, so its CF is just about 45 percent, as most power plants that are not used for base load.

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

A more efficient PV cell is easier to activate under low light.
That is bollocks. The amount of photons able to kick an electron into the conducting band depends on the doting and the kind of 'junctions'. In the bandwidth of light spectrum where a solar panel is working it is already very efficient regarding that frequencies.
It takes a certain level of light to get a PV cell to overcome it's internal resistance,
No it does not. Resistance has nothing to do with light level. The question only is: are there enough electrons kicked inot the 'conducting band' to get a current.
if this resistance can be lowered then it can operate through a larger part of the day.
Larger as in how many seconds exactly? Where we have best places for solar plants, we have the shortest times of twilight.
Anyway, the discussion if efficiency is irrelevant for CFs ... the CF is mainly determined by number of solar hours per year which again is determined by location of the plant. And the internal resistance of a photovoltaic panel is close to irrelevant for its power production.

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

It does not really matter if you fall from the roof cleaning a solar panel or cleaning a chimney.
Both can be avoided by following safety standards.

Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear. We cannot expect solar to ever reach zero on deaths, just like we can't from nuclear either. What we can expect is that while solar power is improving its safety record that nuclear power will as well. Nuclear power has it's slip and fall accidents too, we can fix that just as well as with solar but nuclear already starts with a good lead. As of today, right now, solar is a more deadly than nuclear and by an order of magnitude. Claiming that solar will improve and nuclear will not is speculation.

The carbon footprint of solar panels approaches zero. The only carbon dioxide produced is basically the transportation of raw material and finalized products to the installation place! If you take that into account then the carbon footprint of nuclear plants are a nightmare. They produce over their life span nearly the same amount as a similar coal plant does.

What color is the sky in your world? I have to ask because claiming that nuclear power would ever get to the level of coal is insanity. If you had instead claimed that wind and/or solar had a lower carbon footprint than nuclear by something like an order of magnitude then we might have a sane discussion. I might not be disputing the carbon footprint but instead focus on things like the benefits of nuclear being able to operate in any weather, needing much less land/steel/resources, and improved capacity factor. Claiming that nuclear power could even get close to producing as much CO2 as coal is just beyond the pale.

All power plants, that includes nuclear plants, need a favorable place. The main reason why Germany did mot build more before the decision to abolish them is that Germany has no space left where we could build one. Except the option to upgrade an existing one with another reactor.

This is demonstrably false. Nuclear power reactors can be operated in very confined spaces safely. They are running right now in submarines and aircraft carriers without incident and in very close proximity to people for decades at a time. This fear of nuclear power over nonexistent safety problems is hurting the environment and therefore hurting real and actual living people.

Same for France btw. That is the main reason France is buying so much power from Germany and in parallel is investing in renewables. Climate change is hitting Germany and France noticeable already: less snow in winter means far less water in summer in the rivers. Which means: shut down nuclear plants due to environmental regulations regarding temperature of water in the rivers. Or simple lack of water.

If we are going to speculate on the future advances of solar power to include improvements on safety and carbon footprint then I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors. Air cooling requires no water source, therefore your claims of a lack of proper water cooling preventing nuclear power use is not relevant. Even if we limit this to current technology I get back to the use of nuclear reactors in naval vessels. Build the nuclear reactor on a floating platform off shore, where the reactor is literally sitting in coolant, and run wires to the shore to transmit the power. If we can run wires under water to connect the UK to France to spread out the benefits of wind and solar power then running wires to a nuclear reactor at sea should be trivial by comparison.

I've actually heard of people claiming we should cover large portions of the Sahara desert with solar panels, run wires from there to Europe so they can benefit from carbon free energy. If that makes any kind of sense in the realms of logic, economics, and physics, then so should putting nuclear reactors out in the sands of Africa and running

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

No need to get your panties in a wad over this. I'm not a fan of solar power but I am pro-arithmetic. If solar panel efficiencies can be improved then it can improve capacity factors. I didn't claim it would be much, only that it is possible.

There are losses in the conversion, transmission, etc. If efficiencies can be improved then the capacity factor can improve. Again I made no claim it would be much, only that it would be measurable.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you conclude that panel efficiency impacts capacity factors? That doesn't make sense.

You are correct for the most part. It is irrelevant as he's totally correct that a 0.3 capacity factor assumption is ridiculous. 0.2 is pretty much as good as it gets in the best locations, using 0.3 as an average is pretty much a lie.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

still much better than shitty solar!!!

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Following the same logic: It doesn't matter if you die from falling off your roof or from a nuclear accident, IF you follow proper safety standards you have nothing to worry about.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, just what we need, more intermittent power that needs to be backed up with a reliable base load generation source.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

Solar capacity factors of 25% are relatively easy in the sun belt and can go as high as 36% with tracking and a high panel-to-inverter ratio

No, 25% is top end for the sunny southwest, certainly above average for fixed panels in that region. US average is a lot lower. And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance, it works out better to just pay for more fixed panels.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the reason for lower gas CF is that they back up solar and wind. You must keep a lot of fast response generation in reserve to compensate for intermittency. A stable grid based on conventional sources plus cheap gas for intermittency compensation is what makes incremental additions of solar and wind easy and relatively low cost thus far. As Germany is experiencing, it gets a lot harder and a lot more expensive to deal with that intermittency as the solar and wind pieces of the pie grow.

Comparing cost of incremental additions is fine, but it doesn't necessarily extrapolate.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewables match the load better, reducing the need for any baseload. Moreover, storage replaces generation, and nuke plants need MASSIVE backup power generation because they can go down in seconds taking all the power unexpectedly.

So your rant is really just pretending that there are reliable baseload plants, when no such thing exists. EVERYTHING requires backup generation. It's why the UK is doubling the HVDC link with France and building more hydro storage: so that when Hinkley C goes down, they can get it replaced from France (and therefore the rest of Europe), and have a few minutes to arrange it.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you attribute the cost of mdsolar's and company's legal antics to nuclear instead of solar.

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

Except that's not how it works. The nameplate capacity of a solar plant is based around how much power it produces in ideal lighting conditions. If you use more efficient panels, then you've upped the nameplate capacity, not the capacity factor. The capacity factor is average actual generation over nameplate.

Re:Total Capacity

[Ol Olsoc]

Not total delivered.

So when you see that 9.5 gigawatts of solar compared to 8 gigawatts of natural gas, it's more like 3 gigawatts of average solar output versus 7 gigawatts of gas...

And? I would look at those numbers and do some quick calculations about an inplace technology that is now providing almost half of the power that a technology that involves drilling and pipelines, trains, compressor stations, and a lot of infrastructure.

We are seeing some models already. A local small power generating plant, designed to supplement the power system as needed, generates power and steam heat from natgas. Uses essentially a Jet engine turbine, and collects the waste heat for heating buildings. Backup is a diesel engine for power. So we have Natgas as the fuel of choice adding to the grid, and diesel in a pinch. So solar or wind can be backed up by natgas.

I'm seeing this as a likely new paradigm for power generation. The humongous plants of old, replaced by the sort of scheme I mentioned above. And a lot of other people going off-grid totally. For natgas, that makes sense. For coal, not so much. Coal is in deep trouble, unless we have some socialist makework project to subsidize the shit out of it.

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

Right, trust a random person's blog, not the EIA? Yeah, I'll stick with the EIA, thank you. The blog's "well, if we eliminate the plants we don't like and then assume that half of the power that grid operators add will be poor home installs... " stuff is stretching to say the least.

Re:Total Capacity

[Ol Olsoc]

You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.

Hilarious. So, if I don't go up on the roof to clean them? Is it safer to climb around on roofs of nuc plants than on my house roof? This is one of the more entertaining non-sequiturs I've read in a long time. Do go on.

We've gone over the nuc issues so many times in here - I hate to belabor the issue all over again, so I'll just note that nuclear power plants and their proponents have a big credibility problem. We're told that it's the safest form of power, then we watch Chernobyl and Fukushima go off. Then we're told those are old reactor designs - new ones will never do that. Then we're told that we're idiots.

Credibility problems, along with arrogance. Let us know how that works out for ya.

One thing is for certain - if My solar panel fails catastrophically, we don't have to evacuate the town around it.

Now quick - call me an idiot.

Re:Total Capacity

[Ol Olsoc]

it is fun to have geysers in front of the house ...

Here in America, we have Geezers in front of the house, yelling at the kids to get off of their lawn

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

Boy, gee, your counter of a peer reviewed study with "flat assertion from Mr D from 63" sure is convincing!

Figure 8 supports this hypothesis by breaking out the average cumulative net capacity factor by project vintage across the sample of projects built in 2010, 2011, or 2012 (and by noting the relevant average project parameters within each vintage). As shown, the average capacity factor does not differ much on average between 2010- and 2011-vintage projects, which makes sense given the lack of significant change in average ILR across vintages, in conjunction with the opposing influences of a lower DNI and a higher proportion (in capacity terms) of projects using tracking among 2011-vintage projects. Projects built in 2012, however, have a notably higher capacity factor on average (almost 30%), driven by a significant increase in both the average ILR and the average DNI.

DNI = Intensity of the solar resource
IRL = DC capacity of the array vs. the AC inverter rating

They have graphs breaking down the different plant types and solar resources vs. their capacity factors.

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

Indeed. Up to a certain point adding more solar actually makes load following easier. Also, wind and solar tend to run opposite each other: solar peaks in the day, while wind peaks at night; high pressure systems bring low wind and high sun, while low pressure systems bring high wind and low sun; etc.

Solar and wind both benefit greatly however from a HVDC grid, to allow for timeshifting - aka, people using power after the sun's gone down from a place where the sun is still up, and vice versa. The last study I read on the topic (in Nature) calculated the cost of the grid for the US at 0.3 cents per kilowatt hour, but saving 1.1 cents per kWh in peaking costs.

Nuclear makes terrible peaking or load-following. The economics of nuclear is already disastrous, even with the government picking up the liability for catastrophic coverage (which no private company would insure - what insurance company would take on, say, the $200B Fukushima liability?). Capital costs of $10/W or more are common - not counting operations and decommissioning. But these economics figures are based around the concept of 85-90% capacity factor. If you start running it as load following, or worse peaking, then your capacity factor plummets, and your price per watt correspondingly skyrockets.

Peaking plants are generally fossil plants because the plant isn't very expensive, maybe $1 a watt or so. Most of the costs of a fossil plant are in the fuel. Hydro also functions well as peaking and load following.

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

You don't back up intermittency with baseload, you back it up with peaking (or load following for slower changes).

Just like has always been done to handle changes in demand or loss of production capacity due to sudden outages or scheduled maintenance.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

Considering that those "select" projects from 4 years ago used to calculated that maximum included those employing tracking, my point stands.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

One item to note on the natural gas: a lot of the newly installed natural gas capacity is in the form of combined cycle units, which are operated more like base load units rather than peakers. These are the units that are putting a lot of coal units out of business (and some nuclear units if they can't manage to get a bailout).

Re:Total Capacity

[kimvette]

> Don't forget the dangers of solar energy production.
> I can barely sleep at night worrying about the possibility of a solar leak

We have it under good authority (Bobby Mann) that solar panels will suck all the energy from the sun and burn it out. We need to fight against the liberal solar agenda to prevent this catastrophe. What, facts? Science? Those are just more liberal propaganda. Facts don't actually exist, according to Scottie Nell Hughes. ;)

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

The paper defines the sample:

At the close of 2013, at least 64 utility-scale PV projects totaling 1,532 MWAC had been operating for at least 1 full year (and for as many as 6 full years), thereby enabling the calculation of capacity factors.

What about that do you object to? Do you want them to include plants that haven't been run for a full year? Furthermore, the study was clearly conducted in 2014 because that's when the newest reference is (even though the PDF date is 2015). So exactly where's the problem? Do you think there's been some sort of collapse in capacity factor figures in the past several years, reversing the previous trend? If so, why? Lastly, on what grounds do you want to reject those that use tracking when ones that use tracking are being built? The difference between tracking and non-tracking is not that great regardless in high-solar resource areas, aka the areas where the vast majority of plant capacity has been deployed (see figure 7)

Re:Total Capacity

[pointybits]

In 2014 around 30% of new installations used tracking (Figure 2 and Figure 3), and this is increasing in utility-scale installations as the technology improves and costs reduce (LBL ref figure 7, shows installed price per megawatt in 2014 was almost the same for tracking and fixed systems).

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that a Nuke plant doesn't cycle quickly, so it basically is stuck at a constant rate, that rate might as well be maximum.

Solar and wind can be switched on and off easily to remove excess capacity when it isn't being used.

Re:Total Capacity

[DanielRavenNest]

> And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance,

As of 2014, 61% of new utility-scale solar plants were tracking systems (https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1006037_slides.pdf) (see page 23). The 10% higher cost for the tracking hardware is more than offset by the extra output you get from always facing the Sun.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

I don't object to anything at all. But it was clear my point regarding CF was related to fixed panels, so if you want to include tracking the numbers are certainly higher. Furthermore, one could question why they would not include inverter drop as for any other source CF is calculated on what is delivered to the grid.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

> And nobody is installing tracking PV, for the cost is too high and it requires too much maintenance,

As of 2014, 61% of new utility-scale solar plants were tracking systems (https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1006037_slides.pdf) (see page 23). The 10% higher cost for the tracking hardware is more than offset by the extra output you get from always facing the Sun.

To my knowledge, the use of tracking has significantly dropped in newer installation. I don't recall any recent projects that included it, but I don't have a list of all installations so maybe that is incorrect. If you include residential PV, tracking is even a smaller percent of the total. Why spend 10% more for 5% increase in CF when you can get 10% increase in total capacity for that same investment? Plus take on the added maintenance costs and reduced generation when a tilt motor fails. In some places there may be space constraints, but in general due to feed in tariffs there is no benefit in having a longer production window, only the total KWH generated matters.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

What is the percentage for new under construction? That marketing link just says they continue to sell more, but does not talk about percentages. I still believe the percentage is reducing significantly based on new projects I've reviewed, but I can't prove it for all at the moment. I have not yet seen anything showing tracking use is actually growing in percentage or even maintaining 30%. I'll have to do some more looking.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

...The efficiency was already counted in the first number you get, before the capacity factor comes into play. When you buy a 100W solar panel, it means you get 100W out when the sun shines on it. Efficiency only determines how large that panel needs to be. Capacity factor is "how much of the time does sun shine on it".

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

Also, if you look at that paper, Fig 7 shows the only ones up around 30% are in irradiances of >7. If you looks at non-tracking in areas with irradiance less than 7, you'll see it maxes out at 25%. As you can see from an irradiance map, zones above 7 are pretty scarce.

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images...

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

Because inverters aren't always sized to the maximum physically possible for the panels to deliver; it's not always worth sizing it to the maximum physically possible generation.

Re:Total Capacity

[Rei]

No; apparently you didn't notice the MW capacities on those bars. The vast majority are on the upper end. See Figure 8 to see the averages for each year (DNI). The 2012 average was 7.4.

Believe it or not, people tend to build the most solar capacity in the brightest areas.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

Actually as I re-read some I may have made a mistake, the inverters are included I believe, except maybe for some of their conclusion discussion.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

Fig 8 jis an average of a subset of the sample set, as far as I can tell, and its purpose is to indicate what is possible. Its kind of strange because all they need to do is cite the actual averages from the entire sample set. But like I said it appears that sample set is limited to plants in the highest irradiance areas, not representative of the larger area.

And yes I know they naturally build some plants in the optimal areas, but we are talking averages across the wider region and in terms of the article the entire US. As I said, the number of areas where >7 irradiance is available is very small when looking on a regional, much less an national, basis.

Re:Total Capacity

[Mr D from 63]

BTW I'm not arguing against solar. I think it makes a lot of sense in many places, particularly the southwest. I just want folks to keep the facts straight.

Re:Total Capacity

[Ol Olsoc]

Now quick - call me an idiot.

When a non confrontational post is modded as a troll, it merely shows that th eperson marking it as such, recognnizes it as the truth, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them.

If you just disagree, you shoulf mark it over rated.

Or even better, engage me in a discussion instead of hiding behind your modpoints.

But I'll accept your concession.

Re:Total Capacity

[Klaxton]

The capacity factor for modern wind turbines is 35-40%, assuming that they are appropriately sited.

Re:Total Capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the hotter ambient temperatures do derate any steam turbine generator, and it can be significant. Also, a lot of water is needed for nuclear generation, which is why the units are typically sited on bodies of water.

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear.
This is not insightful but irrelevant.
And it is wrong anyway. In Chernobyl died by conservative estimations about 1 million people.

I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors.
Current reactors are not air cooled and can not be air cooled, so your idea makes no sense.

To lazy to refute the rest of your post.

I also can speculate about a 100% efficient solar panel ...

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

Capacity factor is "how much of the time does sun shine on it".

No, it's how much useful energy you can get out of it. I've heard of people taking a solar panel out in the moonlight and getting it to light up a small LED. It's producing power but not anything all that useful. A limitation with solar panels is that there are internal losses that need to be overcome before it can produce any useful voltage. Even in complete darkness a solar panel will produce a voltage because of thermal effects, but you can't do anything with it.

If someone figures out how to make solar panels more efficient, so it produces useful power during dusk, dawn, and clouding then the capacity factor improves. The nameplate power is improved by building it bigger.

Re:Total Capacity

[blindseer]

Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear.
This is not insightful but irrelevant.
And it is wrong anyway. In Chernobyl died by conservative estimations about 1 million people.

So, if more people die per kWh with solar than nuclear then the only reason fewer people died from solar is that so little solar power is produced. How many people would die if solar power produced as much power as all nuclear power?

Also, no one is has built a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl because the design was so unsafe. It was built poorly, and operated outside of its designed parameters when it blew. That would be much like if we put solar panels made with lead and arsenic frames, put them on platforms made of cardboard toilet paper tubes, wired them together with coat hangers, and then held a water balloon fight underneath. When it comes crashing down, crushing people, electrocuting others, and contaminating the soil for decades to come and then say all solar power is dangerous, unsafe, and should never ever be tried again.

I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors.
Current reactors are not air cooled and can not be air cooled, so your idea makes no sense.

It seems you've never heard of the pebble bed reactor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I also can speculate about a 100% efficient solar panel ...

Sure, you can. Then if we're going off into la-la land we can speculate about a nuclear reactor that converts 90+% of it's fuel into heat, a heat exchanger that turns 50+% of this heat into mechanical energy, and a generator that can turn 90+% of that into electricity. Which compared to your speculation is not all that far from possible. Meet LFTR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Total Capacity

[angel'o'sphere]

So, if more people die per kWh with X than Y
This is a stupid metric.

People dropping from roofs die because they drop from roofs. Regardless what they do on the roof, having sex, installing antennas, watching stars, watching birds or installing solar panels.

And your idiotic metric is bollocks in 20 years anyway when half of earth power production comes from solar power.

Also, no one is has built a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl because the design was so unsafe.
The design was not unsafe. The operators made many mistakes. That is all. And bottom line, Russia has about 100 more reactors of the exact same type, so has China, idiot.

When it comes crashing down, crushing people, electrocuting others, and contaminating the soil for decades to come and then say all solar power is dangerous, unsafe, and should never ever be tried again. So something related to a nuclear reactor can not crash down, crush people, or electro cute them? Are you sure nuclear reactors create electric energy?

It seems you've never heard of the pebble bed reactor.
Yes, I heared of them. Germany had 2 research reactors. Facepalm. Both failed. And both cool the exhaust of the turbines with water. You don't even know what you are talking about.
Yes, the reactor chamber contains "air" ... but where does the steam come from to run the turbines?
What happens to that steam? How to get water back into the reactor to run the turbines again?

Sorry: you have no clue how a reactor works ... go home and read a book!!!

You are an idiot:
Sure, you can. Then if we're going off into la-la land we can speculate about a nuclear reactor that converts 90+% of it's fuel into heat It converts 100% into heat , a heat exchanger that turns 50+% of this heat into mechanical energy That is impossible. The theoretical maximum is 42% , and a generator that can turn 90+% of that into electricity. That is plain dumb again, a generator converts 99% _PLUS_ into electric energy.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Want to guess why?

[kenh]

No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity.

Want to guess why? Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.

Re:Want to guess why?

[ShanghaiBill]

Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.

Exactly. It is totally unfair that coal plants had to stop spewing soot and sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. We need to make America great again!

Re:Want to guess why?

[santiago]

No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity.

Want to guess why? Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.

No, it's for the same reason there was no capacity added from burning whale oil, namely that it's not economical. Natural gas (#2 on that list) is what kicked coal to the curb, not environmental regulation. There's lots of articles covering this, such as this one from not-exactly-a-bastion-of-liberal-thought Reason magazine.

Re: Want to guess why?

[kenh]

Because fossil fuels have been subsidized by at least half a trillion dollars.

How silly. Those fossil fuel 'subsidies' tooke the form of deductible business expenses, the same as any other business is able to deduct, while the solar industry is subsidized with actual cash payments of taxpayer money to cover around 50% of all solar generation programs... no the solar generation plants get the same deductions for their business expenses as fossil fuel companies do.

Do you imagine that the federal government cuts checks to oil companies?

It wasn't that long ago that our current President promised to tax and regulate the coal industry out of existence...

Re:Want to guess why?

[belthize]

Not counting cutting wood on your farm, name one energy source that wasn't subsidized as it replaced the prevailing source. Camphor oil, whale oil, kerosene, oil, coal, nuclear, hydro have all been the beneficiary of federal subsidies, some much more than others.

If you own coal futures and want to see them do well you'd be much better off blowing up some natural gas refineries than worrying about solar.

Re: Want to guess why?

[zieroh]

Do you imagine that the federal government cuts checks to oil companies?

Yes, I do.

Re: Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Those fossil fuel 'subsidies' tooke the form of deductible business expenses,

You fail math. Seriously, turn in your geek card. Because anyone who isn't innumerate can see that reducing a debt has exactly the same effect as a cash handout because you end up in the precisely the same place when its all over.

Re:Want to guess why?

[whoever57]

Want to guess why? Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.

This is complete bullshit. The reason is simpler: natural gas because cheaper. Coal was out-competed by fracking.

The free market killed coal, not regulations.

The only way coal will continue is if it is subsidized more than it is already (by not having to clean up the mess created by coal).

Re: Want to guess why?

[PopeRatzo]

Those fossil fuel 'subsidies' tooke the form of deductible business expenses, the same as any other business is able to deduct

That's a common misconception among people who don't know shit.

There are layers upon layers of subsidies to the oil industry. There are subsidies for exploration, for drilling, for refining and even for shipping and exporting. And a large portion of those subsidies take the form of direct transfer payments. That means a check made out to the oil company.

Even the subsidies are much more than simple deductions. They are more along the lines of the local tax breaks that states and municipalities give to companies and sports teams. They're basically, "If you do 'X' you won't have to pay taxes for 'X' number of years". So they get to not pay taxes that other businesses are required to pay. Which means somebody else has to pay. Just not the oil companies.

And there are many more "hidden" ways that the government subsidizes oil companies, and I'm not even talking about externalities. Loans and guarantees at favorable rates, price controls, governments providing resources like land and water to fossil fuel companies at below-market rates, research and development funding, for example, are all ways that the taxes we pay go to oil companies.

So your argument that "subsidies to oil companies are just like when you deduct the cost of a new business PC" is horseshit.

Now, you wanna talk about the cost to the taxpayers of fighting wars to protect oil fields in godforsaken places, we can do that, too. Because we wouldn't be fucking around in places like the Middle East if it wasn't for oil, and brother, that costs a bundle.

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys like you have been saying this forever. You will continue saying this forever even when every house in your street is solar.

Hint: you don't under exponents..

Re:Want to guess why?

[CaptainDork]

This.

We have so much goddam natural gas we export it.

U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Reach A New Market And Continue To Climb In 2016. In the first six months of this year, nearly 50 Bcf of U.S. LNG was exported. We will be surging to a dominant role in less than five years, with five terminals operating on the Gulf Coast and in Maryland by 2020.

Re: Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are subsidies for exploration, for drilling, for refining and even for shipping and exporting"
It is the governments responsibility to secure the nations energy sources. At any cost. Plus the government also subsidizes the growing alternative energy sources using tax credits. Subsidizing the oil companies also help to keep the price low to the consumer. In some places in Europe a gallon of gas can run you $8.

Re:Want to guess why?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Asthma is as American as Apple Pie.

Re: Want to guess why?

[PopeRatzo]

It is the governments responsibility to secure the nations energy sources. At any cost. Plus the government also subsidizes the growing alternative energy sources using tax credits. Subsidizing the oil companies also help to keep the price low to the consumer.

That's all fine, but let's not pretend that the subsidies aren't really subsidies and that we never "cut a check" to the oil companies.

If you don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with the government picking winners and losers, but let's pick winners that aren't going to fuck things up for us down the road.

Re:Want to guess why?

[Darinbob]

Make America's Skies Gray Again!

Re:Want to guess why?

[Darinbob]

If I was one of the leaders in the coal industry, I most certainly would tell the angry workers with pitchforks that it was the government's fault that they were laid off. I certainly wouldn't want to tell them the truth that it was because they weren't making me enough money.

Re: Want to guess why?

[blindseer]

Right, and if you follow that link you gave then went to where the money was spent you'd see this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

If I was in the energy business and I could choose to go into oil and get a very very small slice of the already small 20% of subsidies spent on fossil energy versus getting a potentially large slice of that 45% spent on renewable energy. If the goal is to profit from subsidies then I'd be going into something renewable. If the goal is to make a profit from delivering actual energy to the open market then it seems nuclear wins here.

Even though nuclear power gets a small portion of the subsidies that solar does and the one nuclear power plant that went on line this year, after taking into account capacity factors, will produce just as much energy per year as all the additional solar combined.

I know people will want to claim military spending as a "subsidy" for fossil fuel energy. For one, not all of that spending can be called an energy subsidy since we need a military for more than just assuring the "spice must flow". Let's assume this is true, then what does that mean for nuclear power? There's no military subsidy for that since the USA does not rely on foreign sources of uranium for energy. Sure, a lot of uranium gets imported and exported but it's not like we rely on this to keep our reactors going. A large portion of the imports are, or were, Russia/Soviet warheads headed for destruction in nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power is vital to the destruction of the world's nuclear weapons, and isn't this a good thing?

If you look at the cost/benefit from a government spending aspect the real winner is nuclear power. If you look at how much of a dent these energy sources will make in carbon output then nuclear power wins here as well. In this case it is doubly so since Watts Bar is so close to the Raccoon Mountain pumped hydro energy storage facility, they won't be using natural gas for load following. Instead the nuclear reactor will just putt-putt along powering industry during the day and pumping water uphill at night.

The real winner is nuclear power. It's nice to see this happening since this might mean we'll actually be doing something about our energy independence instead of importing Chinese solar panels, Venezuelan oil, or Colombian coal.

Re:Want to guess why?

[blindseer]

I don't know this for a fact but I recall reading something on how farmers would make their own alcohol to run their tractors until Prohibition. There were no ethanol subsidies then but the farmers were quite willing to replace gasoline and kerosene for moonshine.

I believe that Prohibition set back the bio-fuel industry by more than a century. We'd have had all kinds of real world data on the utility of ethanol as a fuel if Prohibition didn't kill it off. Even after Prohibition ended there were still "revenuers" looking for moonshine stills to make sure Uncle Sam got it's share from taxing it. I know people that are in the ethanol industry (fuel, spirits, and moonshine) and it's real hard to make ethanol now because of the rules that lived on beyond Prohibition.

Ethanol fuel didn't benefit from subsidies until fairly recently and yet people did use it for fuel until the puritans came along and ruined it for everyone.

Re: Want to guess why?

[thegarbz]

Do you imagine that the federal government cuts checks to oil companies?

Your UID is too low to be that oblivious. Hell there's entire satirical movies based on the premise that the Koch Brothers control American politics. There are most definitely special benefits given specifically to oil and gas projects.

And I say that as someone in the industry.

Re: Want to guess why?

[AvitarX]

The power factor of nuclear is greatly benefited because it has to be a base load plant.

I'm not saying your argument overall doesn't hold, simply that Nuclear's power factor is so high for reasons beyond its running day round. Gas with it's quick ups and downs, and efficient low power operation, also has a pretty bad power factor in practice.

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's for the same reason there was no capacity added from burning whale oil, namely that it's not economical. Natural gas (#2 on that list) is what kicked coal to the curb, not environmental regulation.

True regarding gas, low gas prices are the single most impacting thing on the electricity market in the US and have made coal and nuclear strain, however subsidies have certainly played a tremendous role in the rise of solar and wind, which get many times more $$ per KWH than any power source ever.

Re: Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but those lower capacity factors are done deliberately, but for Solar its capacity factor is caused by the technology it uses.

so you are comparing apples and bananas but trying to pretend a banana pie is apple pie...

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your Gray skies in California hippie!

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Rick Perry will turn back the clock on all this solar stuff and make your grey sky dreams come true.

Re:Want to guess why?

[boskone]

the old tractors would run on old motor oil too (that you could get for free at the corner garage or from your other equipment).

you could start them on a cup of gas, switch to running on oil, run on old oil all day and then that night use another cup of gas to clean up the plugs and carb. So two cups a day of "paid for" fuel.

moonshine is a little more valuable than gas so even with zero regulations, I think folks would just buy gas and drink/sell the shine

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas isn't driving nuclear out of the market, except for new builds where costs have spiraled out of control thanks to lawsuits, delaying tactics, and other bad policies. Nuclear wasn't always outrageously expensive though, and the electricity it produces is very cheap when the plants are paid off and running at full capacity. The premature plant closures are a result of the combination of production tax credits, grid priority, and portfolio mandates that renewables enjoy. When renewables are subsidized so heavily that generators can even afford to pay others to take their power and still make money, of course nothing else can compete. The mandates and grid priority prevent nuclear from running at capacity, which worsens the economics even further. It isn't just nuclear, these policies warp the marketplace so severely, that they are driving all reliable generators out of the market.

Re:Want to guess why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that nobody has implemented a carbon tax anywhere in the US so far and thousands of miners still suffer from black lung, I call bullshit. Coal is losing to natural gas only because of economics. All the easy coal within the US has been taken out of the ground, so it takes more work to extract. Meanwhile, fracking unlocked a new, cheap source of gas. It doesn't get simpler than that, no right-wing conspiracy theories required.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[kenh]

Is he going to get me a jerb too?

No, you can't spell 'job'.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Other sources of power are already legal and in use currently.

Let's put the numbers in perspective direct from the EIA:

Coal 33%, NG 33%, Nuclear 20%, Hydro 6%, Petroleum 1%, Biomass 1.6%, Wind 4.7%, Geothermal 0.4% and....

solar 0.6%. (yeah, 0.3% if it adds to 100%, thanks to EIA for the rounding error)

So in 2017 solar might hit 1% and probably max out. NG will continue to increase with easy access to fuel. Coal is declining although may stabilize. Renewables will be around but probably will never top 10%.

Nothing to do with any administration, these are just economic facts.

And how many watts from space-based solar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, how Solaren promised they would do in 2016?

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will still Build Natural Gas plants not Coal.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[110010001000]

Like that ever stopped anyone.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't quit your day jerb.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[ShanghaiBill]

And they will still Build Natural Gas plants not Coal.

Indeed. Even if Trump was able to relax environmental requirements for coal (highly unlikely) there is no reason to believe that even more stringent requirements won't be slapped back on in four or eight years. Only a fool would build a new coal plant today. In America, none are being built or even planned. Coal is dead.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. If we can afford to subsidize corn, we can afford to subsidize coal until this aberration in energy prices subsides. Oblamer would never tolerate such a thing. Trump knows what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Dig, baby, dig.

Solar for your home

[FrankHaynes]

Florida voters narrowly (and surprisingly, to me) defeated a constitutional amendment that was funded by Florida Power & Light and other very interested parties that would have made it difficult and expensive to install solar power in the home. A rare victory for common sense in Florida.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Google tells me that a ballot initiative by the Good Guys failed to achieve enough signatures to make the 2016 ballot (due to some scam artistry by the polling company they hired) so they will try for the 2018 ballot.

https://ballotpedia.org/Florid...

I'm not comfortable with amending the Constitution for something as specific as this, but I suppose they figure the legislature could be bought out by the incumbent power companies if it were a mere lowly law on the books.

Re:Solar for your home

[Anubis350]

There's a depressing irony in a battle over whether people should be allowed solar panels on their homes in the "sunshine state"

Re:Solar for your home

[antdude]

http://channel.nationalgeograp... talked about solar power in NV, FL, and India. It was an interesting episode. IIRC, it talked about FL's voters and how old power companies tried to block the solar companies. :(

Re:Solar for your home

[luis_a_espinal]

Florida voters narrowly (and surprisingly, to me) defeated a constitutional amendment that was funded by Florida Power & Light and other very interested parties that would have made it difficult and expensive to install solar power in the home. A rare victory for common sense in Florida.

We massively went after the misleading amendment as well as promoting amendment 2 for medical marijuana. And if it weren't for the large number of old guard snow birds who keep settling in Northern Florida, the state would have turned blue. But that's another story.

This time we wised up with the solar panel amendment.

Re:Solar for your home

[DanielRavenNest]

> I'm not comfortable with amending the Constitution for something as specific as this,

Southern states commonly put a lot of stuff in their state constitution, and require it be passed in a general election. The theory is it restricts the legislature from doing stuff the people explicitly have said they want or don't want.

Trump will fix this!

[EzInKy]

Climate change is all a hoax designed to rip billions of dollars of income from the calloused hands of well deserving descendants of petrochemical entrepreneurs.

Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[Dorianny]

The U.S finally managed to open it's first offshore wind farm. A whole of 5 turbines producing a paltry 30Mw of power, by comparison Europe added some 419 turbines producing over 3000Mw last year alone.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[jfdavis668]

I we would halt all off shore wind farms and put them where the wind in strong and constant. Montana and the Dakotas. Place them among the farms, generate power all year long, day and night.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[Anonymous Coward]

"The U.S finally managed to open it's first offshore wind farm"

If we could farm the power from extra apostrophes we could prevent the heat death of the universe!

it's means it is.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[DonaId Trump]

And it's going to be the LAST one, folks, believe me! Offshore wind farms wreck the view from golf courses. People are saying those turbines kill TRILLIONS of birds every year! What kind of "environmentalist" wants to kill trillions of birds? SAD!

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[Dorianny]

I we would halt all off shore wind farms and put them where the wind in strong and constant. Montana and the Dakotas. Place them among the farms, generate power all year long, day and night.

There is a reason why the U.S built its Nuclear reactors close to population centers instead of building them in the middle of the Great Basin Desert. It is the same reason why we can't cover Montana and the Dakotas with turbines to power the U.S. Transmitting energy long distances is both expensive and inefficient due to resistance loss. In much of the North East land is expensive and as a result those states lag behind in wind power generation. Well other then the Southern States which have practically no wind farms (except for Texas which ironically is the top producer of wind power) mostly due to Political ideology against Climate Change Science

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[CaptainDork]

And the blades would cool the land, counteracting global warming.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[angel'o'sphere]

The last time you spread this wrong 'information' you probably where misinformed.
However you got corrected just a few days ago by dozens of /. readers that your claim is: wrong.
So repeating this claim now, makes it: a lie.

So what is your agenda in lying to the audience in such an important matter?

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[dunkelfalke]

No you aren't . US wind power capacity is 75 GW. EU wind power capacity is over 140 GW - and that is just EU, not the whole Europe.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[thegarbz]

Comparing the EU to the USA in terms of where they build their Wind is like asking why there's no awesome swimming beaches right off the Norwegian fjords. The geography of one area is of a huge benefit to off-shore wind (very shallow waters in wind generating regions), while the USA's geography is far more beneficial to onshore wind (most of the USA coast has a very steep cliff just off the coast, that makes it good for surfing but not so much for construction.

The USA has 48800 wind turbines. With a capacity of 75000 GW. Europe has 120000 GW of wind capacity, but more than double the population of the USA.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a country with the population density of the US wants to build offshore windfarms why, exactly? Unless you can come back with a reasonable answer to this you're nothing but a little troll. I bet you have zero invested in renewables and you just like to hear you gums flap.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[Jeremi]

I we would halt all off shore wind farms and put them where the wind in strong and constant.

The wind offshore is strong and constant. That's one of the main reasons you'd want to put a wind farm there.

Re:Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.S

[DanielRavenNest]

> mostly due to Political ideology against Climate Change Science

No, it's because we have a lot of trees in the south, which causes friction and lowers wind speeds. It's no coincidence that most wind farms are in the midwest/Texas areas where it's flat open prairie and crop land. Wind speeds are actually just as high at higher altitudes in the South. The same weather systems blowing through other states eventually come here. But it's not economic to build wind turbines that tall yet. The same logic is why offshore wind is much stronger than inland - no obstructions.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[mmell]

Coal is dead.

Not any more. Have you looked at who's going to head the Environmental Petroleum Agency starting next year? Coal may not be petroleum, but I'm sure the EPA will conclude that coal is no more environmentally unfriendly than petroleum.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[jfdavis668]

South Park reference.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[TroII]

Considering his appointees so far, my guess is he'll put you in charge of NASA.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

that still won't make coal more economical, if anything natural gas will still punt it.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you missed the most important part of their comment:

there is no reason to believe that even more stringent requirements won't be slapped back on in four or eight years

The Trump administration will only last 4-8 years.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Dan East]

The market is going to do whatever is cheapest. It is now cheaper to get natural gas out of the ground because of fracking, and the reserves available are so massive that it makes sense to invest in natural gas powerplants as they will be supplied with cheap fuel for a very long time. It is also cheap to burn natural gas because it doesn't require scrubbing and other processing of the emissions to reduce pollution.

The price of solar has continued to drop - panels have been way under a dollar a watt for a while now ($0.79 a watt buying 6,000W of panels at a time, and I'm sure power companies get even better deals buying bigger quantities). The way these are now being utilized (just fed into the grid when they can produce power without battery storage, inverters, etc) is very economical for power companies to invest in.

Coal, on the other hand, is relatively expensive and labor-intensive to get out of the ground, even when strip mining. Further, it takes expensive scrubbers to remove pollutants from the exhaust when it is burnt, which further increases the cost to use coal. Both of those factors combined (fracking and solar prices dropping) simply make other sources of energy cheaper to produce and utilize than coal for generating electricity.

If you were to ask the question "Why didn't we start doing this 20 years ago?" the answer is because we didn't have the technology to mass produce solar this inexpensively, and we didn't have the technology to produce natural gas this inexpensively.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural Gas is Cheaper
Cheaper to transport.
And does not leave an ash pile to dispose of.
Coal will come back after they use up the Gas.

  On the Plus side it does make sheet rock.

Re: Yei first Offshore wind farm operational in U.

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's nobody there to use the power. So we'd have to move 2-3 million people in a forced exodus and therd just aren't that many Native Americans we can move.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[CaptainDork]

This.

Trump and cabinet be damned, companies do what's best for them.

People who work in coal want their jobs, but investors will not be interested.

It's the Big Tobacco plot and [spoiler alert] it dies in the end.

Cue the trolls

[iris-n]

Argh, the comments section of Slashdot is getting completely unreadable when the subject is something that is even vaguely related to global warming. Hordes of trolls rush to tell us that the globe is not warming, that this is all just a vast conspiracy by all the scientists in the world to get more research money.

Come on, can't we get something interesting? I remember that even last year there would be plenty of comments talking about insolation, capacity, load balancing, grid-level storage, price, subsidies, etcetera. Now it's just this nutjob shitfest.

Re:Cue the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours is the first comment in this article that makes any mention of global warming.

Re:Cue the trolls

[mykepredko]

Didn't you read the subject line?

He's calling in the trolls to start posting.

Re:Cue the trolls

[iris-n]

The very first post was a troll, he wrote "A new administration is coming to town. In 2017, other sources of power will become legal again.". After that a whole line of trolls replied and started new threads, with some mentioning global warming explicitly. The technical posts can be counted on my fingers.

Re:Cue the trolls

[DonaId Trump]

That's because global warming is RIGGED, it's a conspiracy by CHYNA. She quit pro wrestling to be an environmentalist, LOW ENERGY!

Re:Cue the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are right about the quality of commentary, both sides are at fault. Slashdot and Ars are especially friendly to "green" energy, and their trolls are even worse because they are true believers. They are ever faithful, refusing to objectively consider results and their proposed solution is ever increased spending on ineffective technologies. It doesn't work though, it just costs a lot, both in time and money. Don't take my word for it, go look up retail electricity prices and carbon intensity for places like Germany and Denmark. Then look at France. Of course the reply is always that it will get better someday, and to point out how "cheap" wind and solar are in a market that is horribly distorted and doesn't even come close to accounting for the true integration costs of those technologies.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The way these are now being utilized (just fed into the grid when they can produce power without battery storage, inverters, etc) is very economical for power companies to invest in.

Okay, stop right there. Solar is a DC source by very definition. Please provide a credible reference for a photovoltaic system that interconnects to the grid at your voltage of choice without the use of some variant of an inverter. Oh and, concentrated solar (molten sodium or other) in all of its forms doesn't count as those are not solar panels, but mirrors.

I wonder if this will change

[rsilvergun]

in light of the Trump Administration. Solar is very cost effective when you account for all the externalities (e.g. pollution). But with enough deregulation that could easily change. Not that coal had been doing that will pre-Obama (a lot of it is used to make steel, and there's a glut of the stuff from China) but I could see a resurgence.

Re:I wonder if this will change

[aevan]

That include getting rare earth from China where environmental regulation makes America look utopian eco-hippie?

Every time I hear solar (and I favour Solar over Coal, regardless my stance on global warming), I picture those lakes of sludge in China

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, gotta make it comfortable in your cave with your stone age ideas, old man?

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of course, when being transported, it leaks. That's is a problem above 1.5-2% or so.

Why is there an EIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly a stupid question, but can't the DoE provide their own information? Can't both be folded into one organization?
Seems there may be some duplication here, Yes, it's a shocking idea,

Re:Why is there an EIA

[mykepredko]

"The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material."

They don't care about anything unless it has to do with radioactive elements. I don't think they particularly care about power generation by nuclear power plants, when it comes right down to it.

The EIA deals with electrical power generation, distribution and use.

Re: Why is there an EIA

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. EIA programs cover data on coal, petroleum, natural gas, electric, renewable and nuclear energy. EIA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy.

So you know.

Nice misdirection warmist sluts

[Anonymous Coward]

New shmeu ... cause the actual amt of USA non-carbon energy produced and used is 3.78%. Better blow-off a few-dozen BIG nukes in snowflakeville ... put the work done as **culling the herd**. "Course Trumps in, so some believe that culling task just became a lot easier hehehe ...

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Im digging! I'm digging! Mmmm! Love me some black lung!

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[skids]

Coal will never be economically competitive again, so it wouldn't really matter if we did make new coal plants illegal, which by the way we don't.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[JoeMerchant]

Coal is dead as long as we can frack, baby frack!

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Power plants use natural gas now. Inbred dipshit.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually not much difference between the two. It's pretty easy to retrofit a plant to use the other fuel source for generation.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[rahvin112]

Current panel prices are sub $0.40 a watt wholsale and install costs have begun to fall as fast as panel prices. IIRC installed pricing is now arround $2.50 a watt, this is a price I never thought we would see. 5 years ago it was nearly $5 a watt installed.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Darinbob]

Even if they never put back stringent requirements, the economic benefits of coal are declining. Times change, we shouldn't have to act like it's still the industrial revolution. Remember in the UK it was people on the left kept wanting to keep coal in order to keep jobs but the conservatives didn't want to keep it alive on life support. Now in the US it's the opposite, conservatives want to keep it in order to keep jobs even if it doesn't make economic sense. The goal of the coal industry is to make money and not to be a jobs program, and the same goes for oil industry, solar industry, wind power industry, natural gas industry, etc.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Maxo-Texas]

And actually, because of grandfather clauses written into the pollution laws older Coal plants didn't have to start complying with the law until late 2015. Some of them have huge mercury pollution plumes extending miles from the plant which may come back to haunt us.as supersites in the future.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[tsotha]

"Never" is a long time, though I agree if coal becomes economically viable it won't be for a few decades.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, it will never ... oh wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It didn't lose

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't lose. The "antimatter" universe is still alive and well.

Now lets figure out how to contact them.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha! you fucking clueless moron... one of the funniest jokes beaten into the ground for the past DECADE and it went right over your head. go back to sucking dick you dumbass white trash homo.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[jabuzz]

The leakage from natural gas almost all occurs in the local distribution network used for domestic premises. This is because much of it is old cast iron pipe work.

Leakage of any sort in the high pressure transmission pipelines is generally catastrophic and so does not happen at any significant rate. You don't think a power station is hooked up to the high pressure transmission lines with a 50 year old 1" cast iron pipe do you?

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the rest of the world is running on modern clean renewable energy sources that they developed, the same people who sneer at the buggy-whip manufacturers whining about their lost jobs will be wailing because the USA got left behind with little but coal ash and empty pipelines to show for it.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[driblio]

Renewables/non-fossil will be 100% again, one day. They have to be, these are just reality facts.

Re:Total Capacity of new coal/gas/oil/nuke too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet nukes don't produce about 40% of the time, and you aren't complaining. So do the others. Moreover, the capacity of a solar plant is based on what you can get out on average. That's why it's not rated at ~300W/m^2 but somewhere around 40-100W/m^2 when talking installed capacity.

Just like with any steam generator, where the losses in producing electricity is calculated in to the capacity, and with a CHP plant, where the "waste" is added in as heat generation, the installed capacity *for the same size generator* is higher.

But you never complain about that, do you.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[angel'o'sphere]

The technology of today is the same as 20 years ago.
You use silicon like in the chips industry, dote it, like in the chips industry and basically thats it.
However 20 years ago the world market for solar power was extremely small (and all power markets where relatively small)
That is why Germany e.g.started subsidizing solar power about 30 years ago ...
The main reason is the capital intensity. Not many companies can build a multi billion fab for solar panels from their pocket money or get funding in such high amounts.

Rare earths aren't all rare, and not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's bugger all reason to insist that there will be oceans of sludge (cf strip mining or on-site uranium processing), unless you insist on using designs that use them, rather than other designs that don't.

PS your mobile phone is only as small as it is because of rare earths. Better never buy one again.

Re:Rare earths aren't all rare, and not necessary

[aevan]

The point is if the largest majority of RE is coming from China, and China is horrid for polluting while extracting them, then how can anyone claim green tech that uses such is 'very cost effective including externalities'. Start getting RE from non-China sources with better standards - 'rare earth' elements are not actually rare, we just currently find it cheaper to look the other way and buy from China. After that, revisit costs.

Never bought a smart phone. Never plan to either. Entirely separate issue :P

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like whale oil?

Wind seems more prevolent

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my doubts that solar is tops. I've seen at least around where I live that wind generators far out pace solar. Which from what I have seen has only achieved some success regionally. The primary supply fuel for electricity is natural gas, nuclear, and coal. The practical nature of what fuel is used to produce electricity comes from the cost of that fuel. Nothing else matters except how much people pay for that electricity.

Re:Wind seems more prevolent

[AvitarX]

I don't think you're correct.

Does wind or solar have any cost of the fuel?

Surely capital maitanence costs hugely factor in, and more so than fuel costs.

Re:Wind seems more prevolent

[Anonymous Coward]

From a practical perspective the "cost" of fuel for Wind and Solar is the cost of capital (return on equity / debt interest). The government has cleverly eliminated the equity component of funding renewable sources of power through tax credits, meaning only the relatively cheap cost of debt is a factor. The main modification to the GP is that three things matter: 1) Initial Capital Cost (amortized + required return on capital) 2) Operations Cost 3) Fuel Costs

Since solar and wind has no fuel cost, the "fuel" is most equal to the "initial capital cost".

Renewable energy has had the perfect storm. Renewable energy is nearly 100% initial capital cost. As I said, nearly no equity is required due to the federal funding acting as the equity. Debt rates were at all time lows in the US during 2016. Just as the "cost of fuel" changes for all the other power plant types, the "cost of fuel" for Solar and Wind will change over time. The fed just increased interest rates... that is a ~5% cost increase directly but also could raise the potential equity requirements due to increased risk. If the federal tax credits expire that is over a 100% increase in "fuel" cost because the ~5%-8% debt needs to be supplemented by 30% more capital but at 15%-20% because it is equity. So renewable "fuel" could easily cost 250% of what it is today in just a few years.

The idea is that the actual cost of installing renewable energy will decrease over times such that the initial capital cost is lower and the incentives will no longer be needed. I think this thought process is illegitimate, primarily because it neglects that currently a developer of solar or wind is able to literally not put a dime into a project. It is all Government Equity + Debt. People lie, cheat and steal when their own money is not on the line and the number of renewable companies that have gone belly up is massive. Who knows how many of these operations are truly "profitable" vs. how many are just zombie companies barely covering debt while building up a bunch of deferred maintenance. History seems to indicate that most are not wildly profitable even when all the money is free.

Private capital needs a clear path to a high return to justify investment.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[thegarbz]

Nat gas most definitely does not leak 1-2% during transport. Hell HP Hydrogen doesn't leak 1-2% during transport and that is the hardest gas to ship around.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[thegarbz]

Coal, on the other hand, is relatively expensive and labor-intensive to get out of the ground, even when strip mining.

Don't worry about that. Adahni is about to cut open the biggest hole in the world in Australia for a lovely new source of coal. That should bring the cost right down. Combined with the steady drop in demand I predict that coal will be far cheaper than natgas again within the trump presidency.

I hope that by that time ...

[Ihlosi]

"Never" is a long time, though I agree if coal becomes economically viable it won't be for a few decades.

I hope that by the time coal becomes competitive again, I can move to a newly-terraformed Mars or Venus (or maybe even farther out).

Re:I hope that by that time ...

[DanielRavenNest]

Don't forget the orbiting colonies, where the sun shines 100% of the time, and it's 36% brighter than on Earth (no atmosphere to block any of it).

The amount of solar energy that crosses closer than the Moon is equal to the whole world's fossil fuel reserves *every minute*. It's a mind-bogglingly large resource. We just have to tap it economically.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Organic Brain Damage]

And as your first act, you can rename it NERSA.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Organic Brain Damage]

You're assuming the market is rationally optimizing for lowest cost. But we all know a market is just an aggregation of a bunch of people. These "markets" are comprised largely of people who wore bell-bottom jeans for about 10 years from the late 60s to the late 70s. So assuming they'll make rational power-use decisions is a bit of a stretch.

Vapor-ware, literally

[Anonymous Coward]

While the sun doesn't shine, electrical power is still needed. Hence, the amount of non-solar power has to be the same with or without solar plants. However, many of the non-solar power plants cannot easily be started or stopped (excluding the turbines possibly used to burn the natural gas). Now that standby capacity has to be running, to cover nights and clouded days. While its running, and the electrical power is not used, it has to go somewhere. Heating water is quite efficient at using surplus power...

Breakthrough in storage would be much more interesting than yet another few % on some electrical, wind, ...

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is now cheaper to get natural gas out of the ground because of fracking, and the reserves available are so massive that it makes sense to invest in natural gas powerplants as they will be supplied with cheap fuel for a very long time.

This is a common misunderstanding. Natural gas is not cheap.

Natural gas is heavily subsidized by naive creditors and shareholders, most of them pensions and insurance companies.

Shale companies have been in the red since 2008.

See e.g. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/us-shale-gas-industry-countdown-disaster which states, among many other well cited but ominous facts:

> Chesapeake Energy, which is the second largest natural gas producer in the country, hasn't made a lousy nickel for at least the past ten years

Chesapeake's total liabilities now look to exceed its total assets, with no relief in sight.

Plus there's the huge externalized costs onto taxpayers e.g.

> Pennsylvania collected $204 million in impact fees in 2012 (they don’t have a severance tax), but road damage topped $3.5 billion! Since 2009, Arkansas received $182 million in gas severance taxes, but estimates road damage cost $450 million.

We are not producing natural gas inexpensively. The expenses are being passed off onto dumb money and taxpayers.

When ultra-cheap debt ends, so will cheap natural gas. The cost of our energy from that point forward will depend on how we will have invested.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, stop right there. Solar is a DC source by very definition.

A definition is something artificially man-made to explain a certain term. Solar power is DC simply because there is no suitable design that produces AC.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[CanadianMacFan]

NASA is very important to the Republicans even if they don't want it doing Earth science. It is very efficient at distributing government spending across the country and no politician will want to miss their chance at getting their more than their "fair share".

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

the US won't be importing coal.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[jbengt]

A siginficant amount of leakage occurs at the well site and the processing plants. For example, there is "leakage" (but, according to those who've measured it, not as much as the EPA estimates) at well sites is from "pneumatic" controls that use and bleed gas pressure to operate valves, etc.
Also, I lived in a house built in 1917 with gas pipes original to the building (you could still see remnants of the original gas lights) and none of them were cast iron, they were all steel. I can't remember ever seeing a cast iron gas pipe. i'd bet that most non-industrial "leakage" is from blown out old style pilot lights, hard starting appliances that let some unburned gas out while lighting, and the like.

Stop lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal plants haven't "spewed soot" since the 60's, and haven't "spewed sulfuric acid" since the late 80's.

Stop lying.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Ol Olsoc]

Is he going to get me a jerb too?

It is so quaint and cute that so many people think he's actually going to follow through on his multitude of campaign promises.

Build the wall, put her in jail, and unless we somehow do a CCC level makework project, those coal miners aren't getting their jerbs back, certainly not mining coal, for what there is left of it is automated just like the rest of mining.

Coal mining in my area is quick and automated. And Limestone (dolomite) mining is so automated that what took several decades to do back in the 40's and 50's can now be done in a couple years.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Rei]

"They just have to be!" - a last desperate grasp at dying technologies.

Don't get me wrong, they will continue to have a use on the grid - just not the same use. Until storage becomes cheaper than peaking**, fossil fuels will continue to be used as peaking. Natural gas in particular makes an excellent peaking fuel. But their days as baseload are at an end. Renewables have gotten too cheap over the past decade. These $1.50/W renewables plants - sometimes even closer to $1/W - are just insanely cheap compared to alternatives, even taking into account the capacity factor and need for peaking or storage. The Trump administration could slow the replacement of fossil fuels by revoking the PTC and the ITC, but they're not that big; it will only slow the fossil fuel phaseout, not prevent it. If they wanted to prevent it, they'd have to actively penalize renewables relative to fossil fuels.

** Hydro plant uprating is currently cheaper than peaking. But without a nationwide HVDC grid, it only provides localized peaking. Li-ion prices may well make storage a cheaper option than fossil fuel peaking if some of the current price forecasts are met (price halving due to some of the large production scaleups in development, like the Gigafactory and others) - but are more expensive than fossil fuel peaking today. Compressed air storage is also generally more expensive than fossil fuel peaking. Solar thermal storage likewise. Sometimes industrial loadshifting is cheaper than peaking. Pumped hydro can be cheaper than peaking, but it requires the right geography, and again, without a long-distance high power grid, only provides localized peaking support.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[luis_a_espinal]

Okay, stop right there. Solar is a DC source by very definition.

A definition is something artificially man-made to explain a certain term. Solar power is DC simply because there is no suitable design that produces AC.

So for all practical purposes, solar power is DC. Until a suitable (and commercially viable) A/C design exists, I'm more interested to see the OP's original question answered.

Re:Total Capacity of new coal/gas/oil/nuke too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet nukes don't produce about 40% of the time, and you aren't complaining.

Nuke's produce about 90% of the time in the US. You need to try to at least be believable when you lie.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[AutodidactLabrat]

other sources of power will become legal again.

Oh you mean like Coal, currently taking 20 BILLION in tax subsidies already?
That was stupid, even for a Trumpist

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[AutodidactLabrat]

Okay, stop right there. Solar is a DC source by very definition.

A definition is something artificially man-made to explain a certain term. Solar power is DC simply because there is no suitable design that produces AC.

Oh for crap's sake.
That's what inverters are for idiiots!

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[DanielRavenNest]

The reality is the solar industry employs twice as many people as the coal industry (200,000 vs 100,000), and they are cleaner jobs too. But many of those jobs are in Democratic-leaning California, which isn't where Trump's base is.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[DanielRavenNest]

> So in 2017 solar might hit 1% and probably max out.

Given the 75 GW utility solar pipeline (built, contracted, and announced), that's not likely:

http://www.seia.org/research-r...

Assuming a 20% capacity factor (average vs rated capacity), the 15 GW of average output is more than 3% of total US electric use.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[DanielRavenNest]

> IIRC installed pricing is now arround $2.50 a watt,

Depends where it is installed: http://www.seia.org/sites/defa...

Residential averages $3/W, while Utility tracking is down to $1.21/W. Tracking systems tilt the panels to follow the Sun, thus get more watts for more hours than fixed-tilt panels. The extra 10% it costs for tracking hardware is more than made up by the extra output, so they are now the best option in terms of cost per kWh produced.

Re: Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Zak3056]

There's actually not much difference between the two. It's pretty easy to retrofit a plant to use the other fuel source for generation.

Relatively "easy" to convert a coal plant to gas (you're boiling water to make steam, so you can "just" change the heat source. This ignores that some coal plants are designed with temperatures you couldn't really achieve with gas).

However, it's impossible to convert a gas turbine to run on coal, unless you turn your coal into syngas first.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The tech used in extracting natural gas from shale via horizontal well bores is new, and fully responsible for the natural gas boom in the last ~10 years. Solar and batteries have also vastly improved in 20 years.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[Dan East]

Sorry, I did speak too generically. The point I was intending to get across is that most of the solar being deployed now does not have storage nor inverters capable of meeting demand. For example, say a home has 1,000 watts of solar power and a battery storage array. They may need a 5,000 watt inverter to operate their home, because their peak demand (such as while running a washing machine) will be much greater than what the solar can produce instantaneously. The way power companies are employing solar is to simply feed into the grid when they can, thus they never need more inverter capacity than the maximum the solar panels can produce.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[macpacheco]

India's Narendra Modi says solar is cheaper than Coal in India already.
Coal isn't prohibited in the USA, its just uncompetitive.

Meanwhile in unrelated news, Brazil's Itaipu dam on track to produce 100 TWh in 2016, equivalent to an average power output of 11500MWs throughout the year. Hot damn ! They installed 20kW net worth of solar PV at Itaipu just to say its also a solar plant ! Nothing like having 18 turbines, each as powerful as an old nuclear reactor turbine.

Top rooftop solar panels already at 24% efficiency. In a few years it will break 30%, which means over 500 Wp per panel.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[macpacheco]

No it won't max out. There's this thing called the PowerWall and PowerPack that fundamentally changes this whole debate. PowerWall 2.0 just came out, 14kWh storage, built in inverter, higher power. And the large scale PowerPack 2.0 now has 200kWh of storage at a lower $$$/kWh price.
No later than Q2 2017, the 3.0 versions will be announced which combined with either Tesla Solar Tiles or even cheaper solar PV will make living off grid almost as cheap as being connected to the grid.
American Samoa Ta'u now runs almost 100% on solar using the old Powerpack 1.0. Next comes Hawaii smaller islands. By 2020 a large chunk of tropical islands without grid connections to shore will be running on solar, its already cheaper to do solar than diesel.
I bet Hawaii will be 100% renewable before 2030. Not because solar is cute, but because it will be cheaper. That will also make solar cheaper to end consumers than being connected to the grid, including 2 days worth of battery storage.
PS: I'm also very much pro nuclear, but so far the nuclear industry is only humming in China/South Korea/India/Russia (mostly). It seems to be waiting for molten salt reactors and/or thorium.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[macpacheco]

You need an inverter that matches your production, not your demand. Its called grid tied net metering.
For instance, I need 3000-3500 kW PV production to meet my 600kWh/month demand. My peak demand is likely 4x as much, but I don't need a bigger inverter, unless I go off grid, which makes no sense right now.
Here in Brazil we must sell 100% of our grid tie production to the grid then buy it back as needed. So the Solar PV inverter has no job in consuming electricity at all.

Re:Solar rated highest in 2016, but...

[driblio]

I think you misinterpreted my comment...

My point was that fossil fuels are finite. We WILL definitely be using all renewables (and maybe nuclear), one day.