The US has 43 nuclear power plants’ worth of solar energy in the pipeline

[n2doc]

The boom in solar energy in the US in recent years? You haven’t seen anything yet. The pipeline of photovoltaic projects has grown 7% over the past 12 months and now stands at 2,400 solar installations that would generate 43,000 megawatts (MW), according to a report released today by market research firm NPD Solarbuzz. If all these projects are built, their peak electricity output would be equivalent to that of 43 big nuclear power plants, and enough to keep the lights on in six million American homes.

Only 8.5% of the pipeline is currently being installed, with most of it still in the planning stages. Some projects will inevitably get canceled or fail to raise financing.



But there’s reason to believe that a good chunk of these solar power plants and rooftop installations will get built over the next two years. That’s because a crucial US tax break for renewable energy projects is set to fall from 30% to 10% at the end of 2016. So there will be a rush to get projects online. In 2012, for instance, wind developers installed a record 13,131 MW as a key tax credit was set to expire, accounting for 42% of all new US electricity capacity that year. (The US Congress subsequently renewed the tax break for another year.)

One sign that solar developers like First Solar and SunPower are gearing up to meet the 2016 deadline is that the balance of projects is shifting to smaller installations that can quickly obtain permits and get built fast. While eight of the 10 largest photovoltaic power plants came online in 2012—those in the 100 MW to 250 MW range—over the past 12 months the number of solar projects under 30 MW has jumped by 33%, according to the report.


?w=640&h=373


more

http://qz.com/150887/the-us-has-43-nuclear-power-plants-worth-of-solar-energy-in-the-pipeline/

[FBaggins]

1. Or HALF of ONE plant...

...depending on how you score it. Both titles are accurate.

The amount of electricity produced over the life of those panels (even if none of them are canceled) is closer to the expected lifetime output of the two new Vogtle units currently under construction.

[PamW]

2. CORRECT!!!

FBaggins is correct.

It depends on how you "score" it.

Most environmentalists in their unending propaganda quest; cite nameplate rating. That is what is the maximum capacity of the plant.

Now that works fine with dispatchable technologies; technologies where we control a throttle; because we can get 100% maximum capacity on demand.

But that is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST and GROSSLY MISLEADING for non-dispatchable renewables. A wind turbine or solar plant doesn't give you 100% power on demand. It gives you whatever Mother Nature is offering at the time.

That's why one needs to ask the question in terms of the ENERGY, which means factoring in capacity factor.

Solar power for example has an ABSOLUTE maximum limit on capacity factor of 50% - because the Sun doesn't shine at night. Actually, it's WORSE when one takes into account the angle between the Sun's radiation and the solar panel and average over that.

The easiest is to do what FBaggins suggests; and consider lifetime energy produced; and in that regard, the solar plants in the pipeline are ONE-HALF a power plant and NOT the DISHONEST EXAGGERATION of 43.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[GliderGuider]

3. It's what one expects from evangelists.

No matter what technology they tout, the PR is always spun to make it look like the best thing since sliced bread...

Nuclear is safe and affordable, solar and wind are going to rule the grid sometime real soon, and fossil fuels ... well, we need jobs and global warming is a hoax anyway...

[LouisvilleDem]

4. Very true

That's why you should always take a look at whether or not what the evangelists said would happen actually did happen. The only objective guide to what the future will look like is the past, everything else is just prophets predicting shit. Obviously that does not mean that the future will always look like the past. However, ignoring why people were objectively wrong in the past is what separates scientists from priests. A true scientist will alter her/his viewpoint as more data comes in, the priest does not.

[PamW]

6. CORRECT!!!

LouisvilleDem states
A true scientist will alter her/his viewpoint as more data comes in, the priest does not.

That's EXACTLY what we see playing out with the climate scientists such as Hansen saying we need nuclear power to solve the climate crisis:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

The true scientists will alter his/her viewpoint.

The ones that won't alter his/her viewpoint, regardless of the facts; are priests.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[NNadir]

5. We've heard similar predictions every two years for 50 years.

Actually we hear these predictions day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade...

And the result is?

More energy has been burned by people soothsaying about solar energy than has been produced by solar energy at every single point in its history.

The cost of building enough solar facilities to power the servers that tell us about how wonderful solar energy is already prohibitive, as its sucked hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, trillions of yen and yuan and has yet to produce even one exajoule of the 540 exajoules humanity is now producing.

The result of all this wishful thinking is that the planet is dumping dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere at the highest rate ever observed.

[kristopher]

10. No, we haven't. nt

[kristopher]

7. Numbers from National Academy of Science show 43GW of solar is significant

Balancing wind with multiple renewable resources—including solar, which does not normally peak when wind does, and baseload power from geothermal and biomass—could mitigate the temporal variability in generation. Reaching the goal of 20 percent nonhydropower renewables by 2035 could be achieved by adding 9.5 GW per year of wind power and a total of 70 GW of solar PV and 13 GW each of geothermal and biomass. Using multiple renewable resources to reach this level would take advantage of the geographical variability in the resource base.

Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=12619


"Reaching the goal of 20 percent nonhydropower renewables by 2035 could be achieved by adding 9.5 GW per year of wind power and a total of 70 GW of solar PV and 13 GW each of geothermal and biomass."

We now have more than 10GW of solar capacity in the US, so most of this boom will be added to that within another 2 years. That puts us around 70% of the way to the 2035 solar level mentioned by NAS 20 years earlier than they hypothesized.

We have 60GW of wind capacity installed, but the performance of the wind industry is still a problem in that it is responsive to the existence of the Production Tax Credit, which the Republican House is sure to allow to expire at the end of this year. Every indication is that wind could deliver the 9.5GW of capacity easily if the Republicans in the House would stop screwing with the them and passed a stable policy that developers could count on when planning.

(How many times have you heard them attack the ACA by saying stable government policies are required for business growth? They aren't screwing with the PTC by accident.)

[PamW]

8. YES!!!! EXACTLY as I stated...

kristopher quotes the National Academy ins stating

"Reaching the goal of 20 percent nonhydropower renewables by 2035 could be achieved by adding 9.5 GW per year of wind power and a total of 70 GW of solar PV and 13 GW each of geothermal and biomass

Again the GOAL is 20% nonhydropower renewables.

The National Academy doesn't say the goal is 100% renewables.

The National Academy of Science says the goal is for 20% nonhydropower renewables.

So if renewables are only 20%; what is the other 80%?

Hydropower is about 10%; and so-called "environmentalists" don't want more dams; they want less.

IF we can keep our dams from being destroyed by the so-called "environmentalists"; that still leaves us with 70%.

One must also remember the "marketing" being played here; the claimed 43GW of solar is NOT 43 GW of solar 24/7.

No; it's only 43 GW of solar at noon on sunny days.

If one averages over the 24 hours of the day; and over cloudy days.....: the effective power is MUCH LESS than 43 Gw.

PamW

[kristopher]

9. Argue with someone else

20% is at most a rough limit with no grid upgrades and no storage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=55898

The credentials required are English language comprehension
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=55863

Specifically which laws of physics are being violated?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=55879

[PamW]

11. The answers were already posted...

kristopher,

The answers were already posted; you just had to include the next post.

Specifically which laws of physics are being violated?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=55880

PamW

[kristopher]

12. "Solar at 2c/kWh? Not a matter of if, but when – and by whom"

Solar PV at 2c/kW by 2050? It’s simply a matter of when, not if, the solar industry says. But the head of one of the world’s leading research organisations is warning that the biggest problem may be creating enough capacity to meet demand.

<snip>

The challenge, he says, is to install modern equipment at the scale needed to ensure that solar manufacturing companies are profitable at module prices below 50c/Watt. “I like to call this savings at scale, the X gigawatt factory,” Weber said. “That X could be any number, from 1GW to 5GW, or more, but let’s start at 1GW.

“You need to have a certain vision right now, because the industry is not making a lot of money. The 40GW market will soon become a 100GW market, and then a 300GW market.

“If, in 2050, when solar electricity might cost us 2c-3c/kWh, when it is the least expensive way of electricity, it would need total installed capacity of 10,000GW of solar PV to meet just 10 per cent of the world’s demand. Today we have just 100GW.

“We need to get to annual production of 300GW very soon...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/solar-2ckwh-matter-70307

[backwoodsbob]

13. but guesses and hopes need to become reality

I'm 49 years old and I have been hearing that solar is about to take over since I was a teenager.

At some point hope and maybe needs to start becoming reality.

[kristopher]

14. It is reality

At 49 you would have become a teen in 1977.



Maybe your ready for cheaters? Like the nose and ears, the lens of the eye continues to grow as we age. This causes the muscles used to focus the eye to lose tension and their ability to focus. That's why it's common to require glasses for reading sometime in our 40s or 50s.

[backwoodsbob]

15. your snark aside

I have no doubt the price of solar has dropped dramatically.

I'm talking about having solar becoming the leading force of our energy production,what I have heard is only ten years away...for the last 30+ years...and now am seeing it will happen by 2050.

At some point this has to become more than promise and projection and start becoming reality.

[kristopher]

16. That is bullshit.

No one claimed that solar generated electricity would cost $0.02 within 10 years in 1977 or anytime since.

You must be thinking of nuclear.

[backwoodsbob]

17. no your full of it

you can't play that deflection game.I NEVER claimed that.

I SAID I have been hearing solar was going to become the primary player of our energy grid within ten years...for over thirty years...Show me where I claimed I saw that solar would cost .02 at any time.YOU are the one claiming that.

Don't play your deflection games with me.

I havent mentioned that at all.

WHAT I SAID is at some point solar has to quit being a ten years out projection.I have been hearing solar will be a major player in ten years for over 30 years and now it's 2050.

At some point the potential has to become reality or it will fade away

[PamW]

18. It's their motto...

backwoodsbob;

I think it's their motto.

"Solar power is the power of the future; and always will be."

What else would kristopher have; if he wasn't playing "deflection" all the day?

PamW

[backwoodsbob]

19. true

I don't in any way claim to have any expertise in the energy field but reading up on the field interests me so I read the latest posts in the E@E forum daily.

BTW PAM I respect the fact that you...someone who works in the field...takes the time to explain things in a way us laymen can understand...VERY VERY much.It is appreciated.

It just drives me crazy to see the same people twisting the same claims into pretzel logic over and over without ever giving examples of how the logistics will ever work.

[kristopher]

20. The same goes for that BS claim.

You made yoour remark responding to a post about $0.02/kwh so it's a reasonable inference that this was what triggered your post.
But your squirm is no better. No one made any such claim - although that is a favorite rightwing talking point.

[backwoodsbob]

21. so now I'm a RW'er to boot

Actually read that original response I gave instead of playing your games.

No wonder no one pays attention to you.Look at how you act

[kristopher]

22. It IS a standard right wing talking point

I have no idea what your political perspective is, but I CAN point out that such claims are a staple of the right.

Tell you what, why don't you show us 5 documented cases where that claim was asserted?

If it happened as often as you say, it should be a breeze.

[backwoodsbob]

23. WTH claim do you want me to give 5 cases of?

pretzel logic?....hell I could do that in about thirty seconds simply cut and pasting your posts in this forum.

Other than that I'm not sure what claim you want me to back with 5 cases since I make no claims here other than claiming the solar advocates keep claiming we are ten years away....for as long as I can remember.hell...I could just go back to DU2 and post your stuff and cover quite a chunck

[kristopher]

24. Ah, the backtracking starts...

"I'm talking about having solar becoming the leading force of our energy production,what I have heard is only ten years away...for the last 30+ years."

Come on, if you've been been hearing this for 30 years it will be easy to document.

[NickB79]

25. Are you referring to claims solar would be a major energy player?

Here is one claim that fell far, far short of predicted.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/03/prodigal-sun

It showed that alternative energy could easily meet 28 percent of the nation's power needs by 2000.

To be fair, the failure of this prediction was due primarily to the fact that Reagan and the Republicans took control through the 1980's and did all they could to kill renewables.

[kristopher]

26. A discussion of 'potential' is not a prediction

There is a reason we have both 'could' and 'will' in our lexicon.

[NickB79]

27. kris splitting hairs between prediction and potential?

Now I've seen everything.

I note that even your own OP has a lot of wiggle room in what it's claiming to the point where the line between prediction and potential gets blurry:

If all these projects are built, their peak electricity output would be equivalent to that of 43 big nuclear power plants, and enough to keep the lights on in six million American homes.

Only 8.5% of the pipeline is currently being installed, with most of it still in the planning stages. Some projects will inevitably get canceled or fail to raise financing.

[kristopher]

28. WTF are you talking about?

It isn't my OP, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If you don't think there is a distinction between the potential and prediction I don't know what to tell you. It signifies to me that your thinking is probably as imprecise as your use of language.

For instance, the article you posted from Mother Jones is a straight discussion of the potential and possibility that solar could get back on track. It could in no way be construed as a predictive in the manner of the OP.

As to the OP it is an excellent article that is based on as good an indicator as there exists. And I'll make a prediction about it that you can hold me to. In 2008/2009 the nuclear industry was having a field day trumpeting in every venue you could find that there were about 30 applications in to the NRC for new reactors. I predict that the indicator for solar will deliver at least 3-4 times the percentage on its indicator than nuclear will on its NRC indicator.

Perhaps that might help clarify the usage of the two concepts.