Slashdot Mirror
Solar Has Overtaken Gas, Wind As Biggest Source of New US Power (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Despite tariffs that President Trump imposed on imported panels, the U.S. installed more solar energy than any other source of electricity in the first quarter. Developers installed 2.5 gigawatts of solar in the first quarter, up 13 percent from a year earlier, according to a report Tuesday from the Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research. That accounted for 55 percent of all new generation, with solar panels beating new wind and natural gas turbines for a second straight quarter.
The growth came even as tariffs on imported panels threatened to increase costs for developers. Giant fields of solar panels led the growth as community solar projects owned by homeowners and businesses took off. Total installations this year are expected to be 10.8 gigawatts, or about the same as last year, according to GTM. By 2023, annual installations should reach more than 14 gigawatts.
The growth came even as tariffs on imported panels threatened to increase costs for developers. Giant fields of solar panels led the growth as community solar projects owned by homeowners and businesses took off. Total installations this year are expected to be 10.8 gigawatts, or about the same as last year, according to GTM. By 2023, annual installations should reach more than 14 gigawatts.
I think that's similar to the argument that technology is going to take all of our jobs while we are at 'full employment' and been made for 100s of years
. People's retirements are heavily vested in them.
Why would anyone with sense bet on one industry for their retirement? People should diversify for retirement. This is not a great argument against solar as a good argument against terrible investment advice.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
but somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy.
Let me explain. We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them. At the rate we're going their value, while not worthless, is going to be massively diminished. And it's happening fast. Plus there's no massive natural resource to replace it.
We're going to wipe out trillions in value and replace it with, well, nothing really. Now, from a practical standpoint we've still got power. But human beings aren't very practical. When that wealth shift happens it's going to make a mess of things. The people who lose their shirts in oil futures are likely to be abandoned. And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.
While I agree with your assessment, I think there's more context to this.
Tesla is about to come online at 5,000 cars a week (250,000 cars/year) and ramping up from there. Tesla is a highly desired car, and will probably be a big seller.
It's likely that Tesla charging will take up some of the slack. America (and much of China and a few other places like Canada) will transition away from gasoline and rely on electricity instead. The extra burden will be taken up by solar and other renewables, while gasoline use diminishes.
The big losers in the future will probably be gasoline producers and ICE car manufacturers. Gas stations and repair shops will either switch or go out of business (Teslas don't have many moving parts, and so don't need many repairs).
Once the country is largely running on electricity, we can look into replacing fossil fuel generation plants with something more eco-friendly.
Well, it's a good thing that all the big energy companies are investing heavily in renewables then, right?
Most of the buying in actual fossil fuel stocks in the past decade has been institutional. Yes, a lot of day traders play the energy derivatives, but they'll make money either way.
Switching to more renewables isn't going to happen fast enough to crash the economy. Anyway, the bubble's got to pop. Corrections are good for everyone, and when it's done, we'll have cleaner energy (and in the case of renewables, cheaper too).
You are welcome on my lawn.
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest
Oh really? I can pick any fund I want with my investment. I can also look at the makeup of each fund. I can pick fossil free funds. I can even pick funds that are full of fossil fuels. More like it's lazy investment used as a reason not to use solar. There were lots of money invested in housing at one time but you don't see any argument made against companies trying to make houses from cheaper/green materials/whatever.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Crashing the economy by cheapening the energy would be a truly spectacular feat. A little bit like when the green revolution "crashed" agriculture.
Ezekiel 23:20
Solar with energy storage has a capacity factor that's near that of nuclear.
Now that's damn funny. Yeah, a power station which can only operate at anything near the rated output for maybe 7 hours per day is is going to be "near" nuclear which can operate at peak all day long. Hilarious.
Good storage tech would improve the capacity factor somewhat because we wouldn't have to "dump" energy at peak, but you're dreaming if you think it could possibly come anywhere close to nuclear. You can't have solar output when the sun ain't shining, and batteries don't change that. Physics doesn't work that way.
Oh, yes! Please do enlighten us on the desperate plight of all those wealthy oil barons and what we as the common man should be doing to save them and their poor fragile egos from financial discomfort.
Solar with energy storage has a capacity factor that's near that of nuclear.
That's only true if you redefine what capacity factor means.
Now imagine energy storage with nuclear power. That's cheap energy that does not rely on the sun shining to work. With a big honkin' battery on site for managing shifting demand through the day and night the nuclear power plant won't ever have to even slow down until it runs out of fuel. With next generation reactors capable of refueling while operating they'd not have to even shut down for that. Military reactors already run for 30 years without ever having to be shutdown. Much of this has to do with the rich fuel military reactors run but the same thing can happen with a civil reactor capable of refuel on the fly.
One complaint of nuclear power is its inability to load follow. This goes away with electric storage on site.
Another complaint of nuclear power is cost. We can add up the cost of a nuclear power plant and the storage it would need to manage the shifting demand through the day. We can also add up the cost of solar power and the storage to meet the same demand. Nuclear power has a capacity factor of 90%. Solar power, at best, has 30% capacity factor. How much generation capacity of each will we need? How much storage has to go with each?
If the goal is to replace natural gas peak power generation for load following with battery storage then that means solar will be at a huge disadvantage over nuclear. It is common for electrical demand to peak in the mornings and evenings when solar output is already diminished. That means more storage for this demand.
Coal is dead.
Is it? What happens if we add cheap battery storage to that 80 year old coal plant you mentioned? Right now capacity factor of a typical coal fired power plant is about 60%. If batteries allow for that to run at peak operating conditions regardless of the shifting demands then what does that mean for it's total costs at the end of the day? My guess is that it looks much better.
There is no doubt in my mind that grid scale storage is good for wind and solar power. I'm also quite sure that this kind of storage is even better for nuclear and coal.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My shares in buggy whips never recovered. I was ruined!
There should be firm laws against this sort of 'progress'.
No sig today...