Italy Surpasses US in Solar PV

Installing More Every Two Months than California in an Entire Year

Paul Gipe, Contributor
June 30, 2010 | 15 Comments

In a dramatic display of the power feed-in tariffs have in driving markets, Italy installed more solar photovoltaics (PV) in 2009 than the entire U.S. Moreover, within the first quarter of 2010, Italy's total installed solar PV capacity was expected to exceed that of the US.

Italy installed 720 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in 2009, nearly all of that on rooftops. In contrast, the U.S. installed 435 MW during the same period, according to a draft report by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC).

Italy introduced a system of feed-in tariffs for solar PV in February, 2007 after concluding that the previous program of Tradable Green Certificates was not delivering the results desired.

By the end of 2007, Italy had installed five times more solar PV than in the previous year. Despite numerous bureaucratic roadblocks, the solar industry took off in 2008 and installed nearly 350 MW, then a record-breaking number. Solar PV installations have been doubling since then and are expected to reach 1,500 MW in 2010.

Italy is three-fourths the size of California, with which it is often compared because of their similarly-sized economies. Italy has a population of 60 million, to California's 40 million. The population of the U.S. is five times that of Italy.

Italy is now the world's second largest annual market for solar PV, after Germany.

IREC estimates that there was 1,250 MW of total installed solar PV capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2009. Currently, the U.S. is installing 40-50 MW per month, and Italy 125 MW per month. At this pace, Italy surpassed the U.S. in total installed PV capacity before the end of the first quarter, likely by the end of February 2010.

Italy is installing more capacity--250 MW--every two months than California is installing per year.

By the end of 2010, Italy will have a total installed capacity of more than 2,500 MW. This is two and one-half times more capacity than is expected in California, and one and one-half times more than is expected in the U.S.

Italy's 2007 decree also set a solar PV target of 1,200 MW. They reached their target earlier this year.

Unlike Spain, the government has no plans to cut the program dramatically. The proposed revision to the feed-in tariff program (conto energia), currently waiting approval, reduces the tariffs and sets a new target of 3,000 MW for the three-year period from 2011 to 2013. The revisions are expected to be approved sometime this summer. The proposal cuts the tariffs 18% in three equal steps of 6% during each of the first three quarters in 2011.

According to Gruppo Imprese Fotovoltaiche Italiane (GIFI), 93% of all solar PV in Italy is installed on rooftops in distributed applications. Data from Gestore dei Servizi Energetici indicates that about one-fourth of all Italian solar PV installations are less than 20 kilowatts (kW) in size, or about 300 MW.

<3 kW: 6%
>3 kW<20 kW: 21%
>20 kW<200 kW: 23%
>200 kW<1,000 kW: 36%
>1,000 kW: 14%

Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize its impact on the environment and the communities of which it is a part.

15 Comments

Peter O'Connor
July 7, 2010

Why don't countries - states with high yields of direct sunlight not turn carparks into PV covered carparks - shade the cars/pedestrians and generate electricity at the same time.

william cormeny
July 6, 2010

The Italians have an enormous source of non-renewable power in North Africa.With natural gas prices dropping this may be the biggest roadblock to even more solar development or offshore renewables.
The other key element in Italy after this surplus of energy occurs will be the electrification of all rails and all automobiles.
Fiat should become a leader in this field given its past experience in gas saving small cars,and problems of parking and driving in ancient towns.

Chocomix NN
July 6, 2010

It might be worth mentioning what are the alternatives.
Nuclear power is forbidden in Italy (after 1986 Chernobyl accident) and I wonder what other sources can be used to sustain demand increase.
Renewable energy can be maybe the only exit strategy from the current high import of electricity from the neighboring countries (where nuclear plants are instead in place).

Peter O'Connor
July 6, 2010

I agree that we're not using the movement of water enough to generate power. whether it's a small stream (check out MannPower) or larger bodies of say tidal flow or big rivers (see http://www.smartproductinnovations.com/eco-auger.php)we can do much more without building big dams. When dams collapse - and they do the devastation is massive.

GIANLUCA TONOLO
July 6, 2010

Personally, I agree with the idea that Good feed in tarifs could stimulate the PV market and so the real rentability of it. Because if the production rises up the costs will go down and so they will remain at a low level even when the feed in tarifs will not exist more.
Government incentive (in this case) are good.
USA people Have to change their way of life.. They use the worst ways of transportation, the road!!! In USA I have not see an underground station or a Train station.I think that when the violonce will be no more enough to guarantee oil stores for USA people they will regret their governors behavior.

a b
July 6, 2010

" Italy is also way ahead of the US in another category--high electricity prices--and their FIT and solar PV purchases are likely to allow them to extend their lead.... Steven "

Well, that is what happens when you do not have indigenous fossil fuel reserves and have to import all your energy, excepted the incoming sunrays and the generated wind gusts. When your day or night electricity is now generated at $ 40 cents per kWh, then it is a no brainer to produce $ 20 cents per kWh electricity using PV solar panels, while avoiding the installation of new electricity transmission lines.

The US would have much higher electricity prices if you added following subisidies and the military expenditures to to protect a continous flow of crude oil towards the USA, so that the diesel coal train freight can continue rolling.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/fossil-fuels-subsidies-more-than-doubles-those-for-renewables

Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Double Those for Renewables. More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201

2009-2019 US Oil&Gas companies subsidy = $36.5 billion.
ExxonMobil 2009 NET profits = $45 Billion
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009
2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 650 000 millions
2000-2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 4 733 000 millions

ANONYMOUS
July 5, 2010

in these days, türkish goverment will approve a new encouragement but it doesnt include home systems and small systems. it is for large scale systems. it contains purchasing prices of pv energy for only large scale systems. if you want to produce electricity from PV on your home roof, you cant sell this electric to interconnected grid or you cant take encouragement for this systems. for more information you can visit http://www.unienerji.com

Stephane Boisjoli
July 5, 2010

Mikey - "Why is it that very few people talk about not tying to the grid at all"

Simply because it's not useful to anyone else (solves only your problem), and it's wasteful, and it makes less money. You lose some power charging the batteries (a fair bit - 20%?), and once they are charged, the power is lost, a very big waste. Besides, who would want to do install all that and not connect to the grid to make money off of it?

While it might be better use of funds if the government did the work for solar installs, it lacks the initiative to do it, and it's more criticized when it does do so. FITs generate results, without too much of a problem.

bruce tremearne
July 4, 2010

Would love to learn more about the hydrokinetics mentioned above.
Thx
Bruce tremearne

Michael B Casey
July 4, 2010

Why is it that very few people talk about not tying to the grid at all. Produce and consume your own energy. My home in Santa Fe county is off grid with 2.1kw pv, 1.2kw wind, solar heat and hot water, and passive solar design.
Gotta tell ya, the indepedence is invigorating.

ANONYMOUS
July 2, 2010

Italy is also way ahead of the US in another category--high electricity prices--and their FIT and solar PV purchases are likely to allow them to extend their lead....
Steven

a b
July 2, 2010

" But between the two, we will get more renewable bang for our buck by adopting Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or Renewable Energy Standards (RES) policies that utilize instruments like RECs than we will using the blunt instrument that is Feed-in tariffs. "

Duh … Maybe time to stop your flag waving, no ? Results are what counts.

Forgot to read the following lines in the stated article :

" In a dramatic display of the power feed-in tariffs have in driving markets, Italy installed more solar photovoltaics (PV) in 2009 than the entire U.S. . Italy is installing more capacity--250 MW--every two months than California is installing per year. "

enough said, I think.

Shakil Daud
July 2, 2010

I hope the oil remains at the same price and more for the alternative energy development and installations to continue and thus will the new work in finding solutions to the alternative power also increase.this increase in installations in Italy ,more than California is an encouraging news.Governments are you listening?Please make things better for the environment by giving enough as these installers are not putting load on your existing grids as well as are thinking about tomorrow ,a better and clean one.

ANONYMOUS
July 2, 2010

The truth is, the world is missing the most important renewable energy "Hydrokinetics" using the cheapest device the ECO Auger™ patented and developed in the USA. It is far cheaper to install and deploy in hundreds of thousands of locations, than solar (only works in sunlight) or wind (only works 30 % of the time), Hydrokinetic energy is available nearly 24/7.

ANONYMOUS
July 1, 2010

Feed-in tariffs can certainly encourage renewable energy resource development -- but like carbon taxes, they offer the same problem of "where to you set the rate" if you want to get the most efficient results.

For example, as you can see from Spain and Germany's example, generous feed-in tariffs can result in inefficient renewable energy development -- PV panels installed when wind farms would produce more power at a lower price, installation of renewable energy technologies in areas with low amounts of renewable resources, etc.

Tradable Green Certificates or Renewable Energy Certificates might not seem to boost development as much as feed-in tariffs. But they help ensure that capital is efficiently allocated towards the most cost-effective renewable energy projects available. And they allow you to set clear renewable energy goals -- helping avoid the boom and bust cycles often experienced with feed-in tariff schemes.

Given how important it is that we encourage renewable energy project development, both feed-in tariffs and RECs-type systems are better than the status quo.

But between the two, we will get more renewable bang for our buck by adopting Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or Renewable Energy Standards (RES) policies that utilize instruments like RECs than we will using the blunt instrument that is Feed-in tariffs.