Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How NJ Rose To #2 in US Solar Power

By Bob Haavind, Editor-at-large, Photovoltaics World
June 23, 2009   |   11 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Instead of building all their own renewable energy power generators, the utilities can also meet these requirements by buying SRECs in an open auction from installers and operators of distributed solar facilities. One SREC is earned for every 1000 kWh of generated energy, and its price is capped at $711, although the trade value is usually less than that.
11 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 11
June 24, 2009
The title of the article, and of the table, are incorrect and misleading. They are both clearly about PHOTOVOLTAIC, not inclusive SOLAR power.

As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One, Nevada has about 3 times the solar power as 34 MWe given here, when its solar thermal electric power plant is included.

Nevada clearly has much more solar electric power than the 70 MWe of New Jersey.

Solar Thermal Electric (STE) power costs roughly half that of photovoltaic, and as demonstrated by the Andasol plants (each 50 MWe), these technologies can economically deliver power for hours after sunset.

According to the paper delivered by Nobel Laureate Carlo Rubbia at the Seville SOLARPACES meeting, ~1% of earth's surface can deliver the projected world electricity demand of 2050 with STE.

More specifically, according to Rubbia the most compact STE technology currently under development (linear Fresnel) requires only about 15 sq km (~6 sq miles) per average (over 24 hour, 365 day cycle) gigawatt (1000 MWe).

Most current STE plants have well-spaced concentrator mirrors, and use more land. It is well established that solar PV as well as STE use LESS land than coal, nuclear or hydro power -- when mining activities, waste disposal and the size of fertile valleys submerged by dams are included. See EPRI of Palo Alto, Calif . . .
Comment
2 of 11
June 24, 2009
Flett Exchange, LLC has run a market for the buying and selling of New Jersey SRECs for over two years. Over 650 solar owners in New Jersey utilize our market to sell their SRECs. Our market is internet based, runs 24 hours a day and is totally transparent. Sellers funds are mailed the same day they sell. We publish a daily settlement price for all SRECs traded which is on www.flettexchange.com

In the last two years we have spoken to thousands of New Jersey individuals and corporations who have installed solar and sell their SRECs to pay off their solar system. It is good to see people who do the right thing for the environment also have it turn out to be the best investment they could have made in the last few years. The NJ BPU has done a great job with solar and we hope it will be a model followed by other states. The end result is a clean source of energy in NJ along with new business opportunities for installers, solar consultants, sales, investment and so on.
Comment
3 of 11
June 24, 2009
Mr. Scheffler brings up a good point. Too often when people think of solar they think of PV, which is much more expensive and produces power for a much smaller part of the day than solar thermal.

Additionally, the headline is also misleading because it speaks of INSTALLED CAPACITY not actual production. Production is what we are all worried about not capacity. PV produces the equivalent of approximately 3.6 hours of rated production a day (on average).

One look at NREL's solar resource map tells you that New Jersey is the wrong place to install PV and will produce a fraction of what would be produced in the Southwest.

This periodical should be leading the way in introducing relevant terminology to the discussion.
Comment
4 of 11
June 24, 2009
Add one more voice to the statistics issue. There is an old expression, figures never lie but liars always figure.

If the industry is so solid why does no one tout the production numbers?

That solar thermal out-performs PV is a given (on a cost per BTU basis). Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar PV?

Hype is to investment bubbles like lying is to scams/fraud. It's just that the former is harder to prove in court.

Good luck with "this periodical". It was industry oriented before it was bot, it appears to have gotten worse.
Comment
5 of 11
June 24, 2009
Oops, one must read before posting :)

I should have said "Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar water heating?" instead of "Why don't hospitals and hotels, especially in the southern US, use solar PV?".
Comment
6 of 11
June 25, 2009
Think with respect to solar, solar thermal systems either being active or passive, with a collector, storage tank, controller, pump, and other components - direct or indirect, and whether use of a heat dump - space heating, PV controlled, ... would be more complex than solar photovoltaic (PV) systems which are on or off grid, - typically on grid - with an array, balance of systems and a point of connection. If solar thermal systems are simplified, along with maintenance and monitoring, ... may become more prevalent?
Comment
7 of 11
June 28, 2009
Funny that sunny Florida is NOT on the chart?! I tried for ten years to get snowbirds to install PV. The payback is reduced for in the summer months (peak power production) the residents are not there (up north). Solar thermal panels were the norm 90 years ago, today they're all electric. But that mouse brings tourists!! With global warming most of Florida is going under, don't look at the Dutch?!
Comment
8 of 11
July 1, 2009
The industry silence on the incredible success of the SREC program in NJ is deafening. The cost is currently at $700/MWh ... that means a typical 10kW system will generate about $10K per year. That's right. That's above and beyond the electricity saved (which will probably be about a $2000 savings). There is no state program in existence with such an incredible payback. It makes the stock market a joke in comparison.

Now the above discussion on PV vs Thermal ... obviously Thermal has a much better payback, but to make it truly useful for distributed use (not utility scale - that's another subject) requires tearing up one's floor, and is useful only in the winter. Well guess what? Where the sun is strongest they don't pay much on heating anyway.

Yes, it does seem a crime so much is paid in a far less efficient technology (PV) than Thermal, but the promise for PV in the long run is much greater. they're getting it down to $1/W, and while that seems like a lot ... how much will you spend on electricity over the next 25 years?

Ultimately solar installers should be installing PV and thermal, but it's programs like this that drive the technology to something that will give coal a run for it's money. Thermal never will (except in Utility scale, and that's not what this article is about, and who cares what technology is at that scale so long as it's cheapest - that means thermal, but who cares - utilities make that decision and and these programs don't play into those scenarios).
Comment
9 of 11
July 8, 2009
i don't understand the math in david austin's comment. where i went to school $700 x 10 = $7K, not $10K. moreover, vintage 2009 SRECs are selling for around $675. if there are buyers paying $700, i'd like to know who they are.
No image available
Comment
10 of 11
Anonymous
August 12, 2009
Blackrooster and Dave Austin just to clear some things up... You are basing SREC return on system size not system production. I live in NJ and have a 9.8 kW system on a southern exposure roof. My system has consistently produced over 13,000 kWhs annually which earns me 13 SRECS (1 per 1,000 kWh) that I have sold for $680 each for a total of $8,840. I was lucky to get my system installed when the state rebate was very generous plus not long after installation the state increased the SREC price. My return on investment was just 3 years.
Comment
11 of 11
August 14, 2009
With respect to comment #3 above: "New Jersey is the wrong place to install PV." Try telling that to the Germans. The northern tip of Germany is the same lattitude as Juneau, Alaska, and the country is very cloudy in comparison to even New Jersey. Yet Germany's Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) has cause an explosion in PV adoption, made it the center of the universe for PV technology and installations, and their renewables industry (solar, wind, etc.) now sports more jobs than their own automotive industry. Last year, Germany absorbed about half of the global PV manufacturing output (> 2GW!)...this for a country of ~80M people.

Clearly, policy trumps logic, and in this case accomplishes the goal of spurring adoption and pushing us down the learning curve to reduce the cost of PV.

While, perhaps capital inefficient in the near-term, we are all long-term beneficiaries of their visionary policies.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

K2 Solar,Inc. The Stella Group, Ltd. AltE OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute REC Solar Grundfos Direct Sensors Canadian Solar Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters