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.

30 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Re: I forget who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  2. Re:I forget who by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . 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.
  3. More info by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:More info by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's likely that Tesla charging will take up some of the slack.

      On average, Americans use about 30 kwh per day of electrical energy.

      On average, Americans drive 20 miles per day, and an electric car uses about 0.3 kwh per mile, for about 6 kwh / day.

      So a 100% switch to electric cars should increase electrical energy consumption by about 20%.

    2. Re:More info by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large portion of the people that make ICE cars also make electric cars.

      You assume that an electric car is similar enough to an ICE car that current car manufacturers can jump right in. However, the major manufacturing issue is the battery pack, and current ICE car manufacturers have no experience with that. Also, the vehicle control is much different with electric motors, and Tesla is gaining a lot of experience with that.

      As far as natural gas, I don't think that would fly. Large parts of Europe depend on Russia for natural gas, and they wouldn't feel comfortable increasing that dependency. And if they can't sell them in Europe, it's not very interesting for car manufacturers. They don't want to make totally different cars for different markets.

    3. Re:More info by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You assume that an electric car is similar enough to an ICE car that current car manufacturers can jump right in.

      Can you name any current manufacturer of ICE vehicles that has not ever produced an electric car in the last 10 or 20 years? Dusting off the EV1 and selling it now might be a stretch but that would be a possibility for GM to get in the market assuming they've never produced the Chevy Bolt. Also, given all the parts in a modern car the engine that makes it go is a pretty small part in reality.

      However, the major manufacturing issue is the battery pack, and current ICE car manufacturers have no experience with that.

      Tesla has been buying their batteries from the open market for a very long time, nothing prevents a new entrant in the electric car market from doing the same. Might not be an ideal vehicle design but it will at least buy them some time and gain them experience for the future. Given that a battery maker could gain a lot of future sales by helping out a car maker I'd imagine a battery maker might offer some engineering expertise to such a car maker.

      Also, the vehicle control is much different with electric motors, and Tesla is gaining a lot of experience with that.

      Again, can you name any current car manufacturer that has not come out with an electric vehicle in the last 20 years? I know 20 years is a long time but automotive technology moves slow enough, IMHO, that this is sufficient to compete. Even if we narrow that down to even 5 years the number of such manufacturers is still very small if not zero.

      As far as natural gas, I don't think that would fly. Large parts of Europe depend on Russia for natural gas, and they wouldn't feel comfortable increasing that dependency. And if they can't sell them in Europe, it's not very interesting for car manufacturers. They don't want to make totally different cars for different markets.

      You do realize that major car makers already make different cars for different markets, don't you? Left hand drive vs. right hand drive already separate the markets so international companies already produce completely different cars for these markets.

      Next is that there are many buyers of natural gas cars right now. These are mostly corporate owned vehicles but they are produced right now in limited quantities. The current offerings are pretty much just gasoline conversions so they have many nagging problems that don't make them popular with those that buy cars one at a time as oppose to those that order them by the hundreds. If the market grows to be large enough then it makes economic sense to expend the resources for a vehicle designed specifically for natural gas. If the goal is to simply take advantage of what they perceive as a larger potential market then all they need to enter this market space to offer something has in the past been only available to corporate buyers to the wider public. I expect that this demand already exists among many future buyers.

      While I'll admit that what you point out is not completely invalid those are pretty weak points.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:More info by crypticedge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You assume Musk didn't release the battery patent for the Teslas to public domain a decade ago (he did)

      You also assume that Musk isn't producing the battery packs for several other car manufacturers (he is)

    5. Re:More info by Rob+Lister · · Score: 4, Informative
      Though he presented it as per person, it is actually per utility customer, i.e. household.

      How much electricity does an American home use?

      In 2016, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,766 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of 897 kWh per month

      https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
      897kWh/mo / 30 days is 30kWh/day

      So the 40% stands.

    6. Re:More info by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think these are two things that people miss when complaining about Musk. For all the legitimate complaints one might have about him, releasing the battery patent so the world could use it was a real commitment to supporting renewable energy and cleaner transportation.

      Second, by investing in multiple gigafactories, he's positioning himself to be the sole supplier of batteries for much of automation, despite releasing those patents. Has his cake and eats it too.

      I have some serious admiration for the ability to do that. Not a lot of CEOs have the balls to do that and the brains to make it work.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  4. No it hasn't by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Solar had the largest share of newly installed capacity. But solar's capacity factor (ratio of actual energy produced to capacity) is abysmal. About 0.145 for the U.S. as a whole, 0.185 for the desert Southwest (these can be improved with panels which track the sun, at the cost of needing more land area). Contrast this with wind (0.2-0.35), hydro (0.4-0.5, mainly because it's used for peaking power rather than base load), natural gas (0.5, also used for peaking load), coal (0.6-0.7), and nuclear (0.9).

    Put another way, 1 GW of PV solar capacity is worth about 600 MW of wind capacity, which is worth about 350 MW of hydro capacity, which is worth about 300 MW of natural gas capacity, which is worth about 230 MW of coal capacity, which is worth about 160 MW of nuclear capacity. Comparing power generation on the basis of installed capacity is like trying to eat enough to live based solely on the weight of food you're consuming completely ignoring the different caloric and nutritional content of the different foods.

    1. Re: No it hasn't by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No it hasn't by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  5. Re:I forget who by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Informative
    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  6. Great! by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Between the hours of maybe 9 AM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM, solar electricity will be so plentiful that it will sell for a very few cents per KwH, causing it to be difficult to pay for the infrastruction.

    At other times, the traditional sources of electricity will prevail. Electricity prices will be what the always were.

    At least until someone invents the magic battery that can spread the peak sun-gathering times out across the 24 hours the rest of us have to deal with.

    1. Re:Great! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Between the hours of maybe 9 AM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM, solar electricity will be so plentiful that it will sell for a very few cents per KwH, causing it to be difficult to pay for the infrastruction.

      The infrastructure has to be there either way so it makes no difference.

      At other times, the traditional sources of electricity will prevail. Electricity prices will be what the always were.

      At least until someone invents the magic battery that can spread the peak sun-gathering times out across the 24 hours the rest of us have to deal with.

      The point is to make energy more efficient. Any solution doesn't have to entirely replace existing methods, merely supplement it enough to be cost effective and offer savings. Solar does this quite well.

  7. Re:I forget who by Trogre · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of the more sensible investment schemes have already heavily divested from fossil fuels, so they won't be directly affected by such a crash.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  8. Re:I forget who by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Well, it's a good thing that all the big energy companies are investing heavily in renewables then, right?

    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.

    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.
  9. Re:I forget who by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't know how investments work do you?

    BTW there are plenty of retirement funds divesting from fossil fuels for this very reason, it will be impossible to time the drop in value of the existing fossil fuel companies. CalPEL and NY and several other major retirement funds have already began to divest because of this future risk.

    Anyone smart realizes the risk and has either divested or keeps fossil fuel stocks at less than 5% of the portfolio so a collapse won't significantly harm investments. But these stocks won't collapse to zero overnight, it's going to be a long slide as people realize the value the stock holds for fuel in the ground is not there and consumption declines.

  10. Re:Because there's Trillions in assets by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Conservatives by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conservatives are supposed to be pro-business yet when the next big business comes along they do everything in their power to kill it.

  12. The Big Almost by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About 15 years ago I spotted an extrapolated trend chart that predicted solar's energy-per-dollar-spent ratio would surpass petroleum in roughly a decade.

    So, I decided to invest in solar. Sure enough, solar boomed, BUT the stocks I picked soured because the solar industry largely shifted to China. (China was later sanctioned for cheating.)

    Sigh. Right church, wrong pew.

    1. Re:The Big Almost by rossz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. The Chinese government funded their solar businesses to drive out competition. Also, while they have environmental laws, they are generally ignored. Making solar cells is a very dirty business and keeping it from ruining the environment costs lots of money. So a double whammy to American solar businesses.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  13. Re:I forget who by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:Because there's Trillions in assets by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:I forget who by fatwilbur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Count me in as one who has heavily invested savings into "oil and gas" companies recently. In some cases due to price dips because of renewables hype.

    Don't get me wrong, I think growing solar and wind options are great.. I'm just realistic. When I read summaries like this (having a background in math), I can immediately spot where they are using statistics to distort the facts. Energy consumption is additive as new technologies come online, and this growth is not at the expense of fossil fuel growth, which continues to grow as well. Remember, more energy used == higher quality of life. People aren't going to stop using any source of energy they find.

    Second, what you think of as "oil & gas" companies largely don't exist, they have all long since diversified to "energy" companies. In most cases, the big "oil" players are the world's heaviest investors into renewable energy installations and infrastructure. Kind of funny to think the same companies you blast as "big oil" are probably doing far more for renewables than you or any activist I've ever heard of...
    Interesting side note: some of these companies I have invested in have started in the last two years or so to sell their solar and wind assets. In not so many words, their reasoning is: current hype has these assets so overvalued it makes sense to sell them and reinvest that money elsewhere into something that makes better money.. usually back into Oil & Gas (natural gas is a popular one lately). In particular I hear reference to falling subsidies, which make the shaky economics even worse.

    Lastly, rather than just hype about maybe making money in the future, most of these companies earn lots of steady cash, which you should count on for dividends far more than share price growth. If you understood any hydrocarbon market dynamics or fundamental uses of fuel, you'd realize it's not going anywhere. In the best scenario, say solar power replaces all transportation fuel; absolutely great! There will still be people lined up around the block to buy it for other uses. It will always be valuable.

  16. Re:Capacity factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    All it takes is one bad experience with sea food. Pandas have been sticking to the "safe" choice ever since.

  17. Re:So you say the rate of installation has slowed. by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not even close. I think it's going to double in about 7 Billion years or so.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:I forget who by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My shares in buggy whips never recovered. I was ruined!

    There should be firm laws against this sort of 'progress'.

    --
    No sig today...
  19. Re:Because there's Trillions in assets by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Problem: A lot of them are in charge of running the country!

    --
    No sig today...
  20. That's what the word "disruptive technology" means by XXongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    This is true of every change in technology, of course. People who invested in radio stations moved their investments elsewhere. Radio stations still exist, of course, but because demand is down they aren't the huge moneymakers they were when everybody listened to the radio. Fossil fuels will still exist and still be used, of course, but if demand goes down they won't be the big moneymakers they once were.

    People move investments around. This is what happens. The economy does not crash, in fact, it is actually GOOD for the economy to build new infrastructure to replace old, run down infrastructure.

    ... And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.

    I can't help but think that what will happen in the middle east will be good (and good for ALL the parties involved) once all the powerful interests that have no motivation but oil, oil, and oil stop messing around.

    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

    I'm much more scared of that, actually. In this case what the "disruptive technology" is making obsolete is people. As long as it makes new jobs for people, that's fine. But I'm not sure what happens when AI can do things better than any person in any job.