While the BLM is facing a virtual clog of large, desert-based solar project proposals, smaller, distributed solar projects are popping up at an impressive rate. In just the past few weeks, 1,300 MW worth of these projects have been announced or approved, which could equal about the same energy output of a big nuclear power plant.
The larger, more ambitious solar power plans have many environmental and land-use hurdles to clear, while these smaller plans, set to occupy commercial and residential rooftops, areas near electrical substations and urban areas, don't have the same obstacles in their way. Also, the smaller projects are cheaper, meaning more utilities can afford to implement them as they're scrambling to meet renewable energy mandates.
Arno Harris, the CEO of Recurrent Energy, a company that has signed a contract with Southern California Edison for 50 MW of small-scale solar, summed it up like this:
“Distributed solar is faster on permitting, on environmental issues and interconnection to the grid. It offers a safety valve for utilities who don’t want to put all their eggs in one basket.”
The projects, anywhere from 50 to 500 MW each, are mainly concentrated in California, though New York Power Authority is planning 100 MW installation around the state as well.
via Green Inc.
Hits: 6773
Comments (11)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by VeruTEK Green Technologies, February 04, 2010
I think the reason why bigger solar panels aren't as popular is because of the actual cost it takes to maintain, and buy them. Not to mention for small buildings and homes, there is no need for larger ones.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Christof, February 04, 2010
I sure hope that the distributive, local, much more democratic local rooftop/parking lot solar carport model becomes the dominant solar model. With giant solar plants, we have greener, cleaner power, but we have more of the same top-down, power-in-the-hands-of-a-few power production model. Rooftop solar breaks that down, plus, local rooftop solar is: 1) generated where the energy is used; 2) is placed in places that are already environmentally degraded, meaning rooftops in urban areas.
-
- +5
-
-
written by Chris, February 05, 2010
It is always good to see more of something which actually works. Even if some situations were being more less forced by mandates at least it gets the ball rolling in a positive way.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Resourceguy, February 05, 2010
It's amazing how one mistaken word choice can mislead a lot of readers. The mistake is in choosing to say rooftop. These are not rooftop systems and one clue for that is the project range of 50 to 500 mw each. Some day solar reporting is actually going to get all of the key factors and terms right and I will truly be amazed.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Jess @OpenlyBalanced, February 05, 2010
This makes so much more sense. I agree with everything Christof said about the benefits, not to mention the fact that a distributed solar model eliminates the solar v. tortoise argument.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian Green, February 07, 2010
This year I'm going to be buying a home and installing panels on the roof to offset the energy I use. I'm going to instal a combo system that has a twenty battery backup for those days when we lose power.
I have seen more and more houses with panels on them recently as more people become aware that the sun is a vital source of energy. I live here in Seattle area and while we have a lot of cloudy days, the solar panels I have already still register input. There's a huge difference between shade and cloudy skies. I can still generate power from cloudy skies. :-)
I have seen more and more houses with panels on them recently as more people become aware that the sun is a vital source of energy. I live here in Seattle area and while we have a lot of cloudy days, the solar panels I have already still register input. There's a huge difference between shade and cloudy skies. I can still generate power from cloudy skies. :-)
-
- +1
-
-
written by Kevin C., February 07, 2010
To quote a commenter on reddit:
And when we say 1300MW of solar, are we talking about peak, or average?
A nuke has a 90% capacity factor, so a 1000MW peak plant generates 900MW average.
Solar has at best a 25% capacity factor (6 hours of noon-equivalent sunlight per day, in a really good climate), so a 1000MW peak plant generates 250MW on average.
Too often, people quote solar's peak power, not the average.
Also, this should have linked to the NYT article, not this content-free blogspam.
If we follow a PDF link in the original NYT article, we find it that the 48MW project described is in fact 48 MW (peak) capacity, with a 20% capacity factor, or less than 10MW average. If we take their 77 GWh/hr generation and divide by 365x24 hours, we arrive at 8.7 MW.h per hour, or an average power of 8.7 MW, in agreement with 48MW peak and 20% capacity factor.
So these 1300MW of new solar facilities are equivalent to about 1/4 of one modern nuclear plant. Not two nuclear plants.
It's amazing how much work you have to do to uncover this.
-
- +0
-
-
written by hyperspaced, February 08, 2010
Distributed solar. That's the way. Energy creation on site and excess energy pushing back to the grid.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Chris Hooymans, February 11, 2010
More people and businesses around the world would invest in home or business based solar power generation if a universal and fair feed-in tariff and tax incentives were the rule not the exception to accommodate selling back to grid during the peak generation periods experienced in solar generation.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Bob in CA, February 11, 2010
I agree the comparison with nuke plants is misplaced, but dissing these for low average output isn't much better. Average power would indeed be the important metric if usage were constant, but it's not. In many places, peak demand occurs roughly when peak output would be coming from solar plants. It's no different from the gas turbine plants that are intended only to provide power during peak demand periods. Average output doesn't mean that much because you only run them when you need them.
Resourceguy, according to mailers I've received from Southern Calif. Edison (my local supplier), the mistake is not to say rooftop, but the 50-500 MW is misleading. In fact Edison IS planning to use the rooftops of large industrial customers for a good part of this. We have lots of big warehouses in SoCal that would be suitable. I think the numbers were a misquote. IIRC those were totals across the system.
Resourceguy, according to mailers I've received from Southern Calif. Edison (my local supplier), the mistake is not to say rooftop, but the 50-500 MW is misleading. In fact Edison IS planning to use the rooftops of large industrial customers for a good part of this. We have lots of big warehouses in SoCal that would be suitable. I think the numbers were a misquote. IIRC those were totals across the system.
-
- +0
-
-
written by richard Davine, February 11, 2010
Kevin C obviously loves nukes. Good for you kiddo. I hate em cos they are dual use, that is used for nuclear bombs as well. Also nukes are Co2 intensive for all their cycle except of course the actual reaction. As for modern nuke power stations: Are they all modern Kev? No they are not and we would be fools to produce more.
This is an excellent article and I believe it points the way ahead for roof top power production, not just solar but wind as well.
Also in the case of Australia and other sunny hot places we use most of our power when the sun is at its meridian for AC, so solar is right on the money, at the right time; and if it's produced in the place where it is used, even better.
Put that in your nuclear power station and smoke it!
This is an excellent article and I believe it points the way ahead for roof top power production, not just solar but wind as well.
Also in the case of Australia and other sunny hot places we use most of our power when the sun is at its meridian for AC, so solar is right on the money, at the right time; and if it's produced in the place where it is used, even better.
Put that in your nuclear power station and smoke it!
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
FEB 04
"Kevin C obviously loves nukes. Good for you kiddo. I hate em cos they ..."
View all Comments