Solar Power Rundown for Thursday, February 4

So many megawatts, so little time… Here’s today’s rundown of solar energy news:

SunEdison, a solar installation project developer, announced today the activation of the first phase of a 16-megawatt (mW) solar farm in North Carolina. Located in Davidson County, N.C., the project, when complete, will generate 115 million kilowatt-hours of electricity over the course of 20 years — enough to power 10,000 homes for a year. It will also offset 225 million pounds of carbon dioxide.

The parent company of SunEdison, MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (NYSE: WFR), this morning provided financial guidance for 2010. Evidently investors did not like what they saw: WFR was down 13 percent in mid-day trading.

Todd Woody at the Green Inc. Blog talks about renewed interest in smaller-scale distributed solar installations. Great overview, but I’m surprised he didn’t mention PSE&G’s move to install solar panels on utility poles across New Jersey, which is arguably the most “distributed” you can get.

Germany’s solar energy industry predicts a 44 percent cut in the price paid for electricity generated from solar electric systems, reports Bloomberg. Both Germany and France have in recent weeks moved to reduce the going rate for solar power.

The mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, wants to turn a site ruined by coal mining into a solar energy farm, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. As a Solar America City, Pittsburgh has a long-term goal to meet 0.5% of all electricity needs in the city with solar.

Austin, Texas (another Solar America City), is considering a new approach to promoting adoption of solar power, reports The Statesman. Instead of offering an upfront rebate to solar buyers, the Austin City Council’s plan would have Austin Energy, the local utility, buy the electricity generated by rooftop systems owned by city businesses. To test the idea, Austin Energy wants to begin offering 10-year electricity purchase contracts to a limited number of businesses.

Finally, we’ve all heard of “peak oil” theory — the notion that global supply of the stuff will peak and then steadily decline. A recent report, brought to our attention via Kate Mackenzie at FT Energy Source, talks not of peak oil supply, however, but of peak oil demand. The short (seven-page) report argues that demand for oil will weaken because of three main variables: price volatility, concerns about the security of supply, and climate change. I’m no oil and gas expert, but aside from climate change, aren’t we already intimately familiar with the first two?

georgeodjungle Said,

February 4th, 2010 @4:43 pm

each 100watt 12volt panel carries a burden of 314 kilograms of CO2
&
also made with about 36kw @ 277volts for 40 hours.
&
plus the heat 1400deg C & 700deg C the melt the quartz to make silicon
now do the math
PVs are NOT smart or green

Adam Sewall Said,

February 4th, 2010 @5:34 pm

From the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

“Producing electricity with photovoltaics (PV) emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases, and uses no finite fossil- fuel resources. The environmental benefits of PV are great. But just as we say that it takes money to make money, it also takes energy to save energy. The term “energy payback” captures this idea. How long does a PV system have to operate to recover the energy—and associated generation of pollution and CO2—that went into making the system, in the first place?

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystal- line-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film mod- ules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, green- house gases, and depletion of resources.”

AND:

“An average U.S. household uses 830 kWh of electricity per month. On average, producing 1,000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with a 2-year energy payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical-plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide (see Figure 2). PV is clearly a wise energy investment that affords impressive environmental benefits.”

February 4th, 2010 @10:04 pm

not green buy the way there made.ya still didn’t do the math
& solar PVs are also cash cows
payback in the real world is 10 fold what were told. part 1 of the schemm thay don’t move the decimal point.
take nellis afb, cost $100m to make $1m ayear worth of power buy the way the panels last 20 years without trackers. thats a loss of $80m.
ya ya labor the run the scheem not inlcuded.
& lasting 20 years makes them disposable NOT renewable