Solar Industry's Exponential Growth in 2011 Indicates Healthy US PV Market

GTM Research and SEIA release U.S. Solar Market Insight: Year-in-Review 2011, analyzing the industry's record growth and what lies ahead in 2012 and beyond.

Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
March 14, 2012 | 50 Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It wasn't too many years ago when the installing more than 1 gigawatt (GW) of solar PV in the U.S. in one year was a pipedream. But according to the latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report, in 2011 the industry didn't just eek out more than 1 GW of solar: it blew that threshold away.

2011 Q4 U.S. Solar Market Insight Key Report Findings: PV installations grew 109% in 2011 to reach 1,855 MW, which represents 7.0% of all PV globally, up from 887 MW and 5.0% of global installations in 2010. Cumulative PV capacity operating in the U.S. now stands at 3,954 MW. There were 28 individual PV projects over 10 MW completed in 2011, up from only two in 2009. Eight states installed over 50 MW each in 2011. Installation totals in 2011 increased in 18 of the 23 states covered in detail. Weighted average PV system prices fell 20% in 2011 as a combined result of lower component prices, improved installation efficiency, and a shift toward larger systems. There were over 61,000 individual PV systems installed in the U.S. in 2011, bringing the total number of operating systems in the U.S. to more than 214,000.

According to GTM research and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), authors of the report, the U.S. installed 1,855 MW (or 1.86 GW) of solar in 2011 and is expected to install a full gigawatt more than that in 2012: 2.8 GW. The report points to two important factors that drove the massive amount of installation in the U.S. First, declining module prices meant that overall system prices dropped 20 percent. Second, expiring solar power incentives, such as the 1603 Grant in Lieu of Tax Credit forced developers to begin projects before the end of 2011. In the fourth quarter of 2011 alone, the industry installed 755 MW, up 115 percent from Q4 2010.

GTM Research and SEIA estimate the U.S. solar market’s total value surpassed $8.4 billion in 2011.

The report also looks at the concentrating solar power (CSP) market. While no new concentrating solar thermal electric capacity was brought online in 2011, a total of 10 concentrating PV projects came online. The year also saw healthy construction progress on a number of projects with some capacity expected to come online later in 2012 and a surge to come online in 2013. Today, more than 1,000 MW of CSP are under construction.

In addition the report highlights the U.S.’s growing share of the global installed PV capacity. In 2010, the U.S. held five percent of the world’s installed capacity, a number that grew to seven percent in 2011. “In 2011, the market demonstrated why the U.S. is becoming a center of attention for global solar,” said Shayle Kann, Managing Director of GTM Research’s solar practice. Developers worldwide are eyeing the U.S. market as the next booming solar location. Up until now, Germany and Italy have installed the lion’s share of PV capacity. (See chart below, which shows the U.S. share of global PV installations.)

Finally, utility-scale projects really came into the spotlight in 2011. There were over 400 MW of utility PV completed in just Q4 2011, by far the highest of any quarter for this market segment, according to the report. Some 800 MW were installed in the commercial sector in 2011, led by the California and New Jersey, compared to 758 MW of utility PV and 297 MW of residential installations. Utility-scale project installations, primarily across states in the Southwest, nearly tripled 2010 totals. In the residential sector, California installed 114 MW, with New Jersey, Arizona, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and Colorado each contributing meaningfully to the residential total.

The U.S. Solar Market Insight Report is just one topic that will be discussed next week at PV America in San Jose, California.

Image: Green arrow going up via Shutterstock.

50 Comments

mike shurtleff
2012-04-01 20:07:19.0

@bob clemintime,
"If you think the taxes would slow down the economy, why not decrease income taxes if a pollution tax is put into place as it is a much more efficient means of taxation."
"Also, the tax would make renewables far more competitive which should create rapid growth in the industry."

This sounds very reasonable to me. You win. Run as a dark horse independent this year, will you?
Thanks. ;-)

Trevor Bond
2012-03-24 20:05:55.0

I agree that corporations have far too much power in politics.

I do however wish to defend my tax proposal. As I mentioned in my earlier post most taxes do have a net economic loss because markets are no longer at their most efficient point. However, when the tax is on pollution the economic gain is positive because of the tax revenue and also increase in public health, and decreases to property damage and damage to the environment.

If you think the taxes would slow down the economy, why not decrease income taxes if a pollution tax is put into place as it is a much more efficient means of taxation.

Also, the tax would make renewables far more competitive which should create rapid growth in the industry.

mike shurtleff
2012-03-24 16:11:35.0

We're going to have ubiquitous solar. The only question is how healthy with the USA's solar manufacturing be? How much of this industry will we have? …or will we be buying all our solar panels from country's that will always play nice, like China?

Sorry to rail on. Hope this helps a few people think clearly about where we're going and why …and what really makes sense.

mike shurtleff
2012-03-24 16:11:11.0

The FITs for solar should be reduced annually in a sensible way, until residential solar is being installed for half the end-of-gird peak energy cost in Southern California, $0.15/kWh. Half the cost of incumbent sources is the point at which a new technology takes off and disruptively replaces the incumbent. Japan terminated their FIT when they got close to grid parity. This was a mistake and their solar industry has been declining. They are now re-instituting it, so they can capture more of this market in their own country and over-seas. The USA needs to wake-up and smell the coffee. We have much better solar resource than Germany AND good solar technology. We need to keep stimulating this industry NOW!

Clearly, I think politics should be a part of the solar and renewables discussion. All three presidential Republican runners are attacking renewables because they have no brains or no ethics, take your pick. All of the tea bagger congressional reps are doing what they can to block renewable energy incentives. They are bought and paid for buy big oil and coal. There is way too much influence from large corporations in politics in the USA. Big oil and coal are making huge profits and now see that wind and solar are beginning to cut into those profits. They see the obvious, that the advantage of wind and solar is increasing. The profit margin of the big oil and coal companies, based on a no-alternative fossil fuel economy, is in danger. They are buying politicians and perpetuating disinformation. Disinformation that now includes out right lies. You guys are headed in the right direction, but I'm including politics. These flat earth pea brains are going to be brought down. The corporations fighting against a better future for my children are hanging themselves with their own gross profit margin rope. These people might as well be the land line phone companies fighting against cell phones.

mike shurtleff
2012-03-24 16:08:56.0

@steve poppitz & bob clemintime,

I respectfully disagree. I think a tax on pollution will raise energy costs in general, slow down the economy, and therefore slow down the conversion to renewables in this country. I believe we should cut the subsidies to all fossil fuels. They are all mature businesses making good, or even spectacular, profits. I think we should take half the money saved and use that for FITs to stimulate solar, wind, geothermal, ocean current and wave energy systems (in that order) and energy storage systems (right up there with solar).

You are right about current conservatives. They are not fiscal conservatives. They are small minded flat-earth society conservatives. I used to be a moderate republican. I still am. I believe in freedom of religion, living within my means, and respect for others. That doesn't seem to fit anywhere within current Republican politics. I want freedom of religion, even if it is not mine, partially because I don't want right wing Christians telling me what my flavor of Christianity should look like. (hypocritical dirt bags) I also want our government to live within their means. I swore I would vote against Obama if he did not start to balance the budget at the end of his term. Obviously, the Republicans are fielding one of three nut-ball jackasses that I can't vote for. A good energy policy is the basis for an economic turn around that can help pay the taxes (and cut losses on foreign wars) to pay for reasonable policies to help balance the budget and solve other problems the our country has. Low cost energy is directly correlated with standard of living and solar has reached the tipping point where it is beginning to make that happen. (Read about how renewables are now keeping electricity costs down in Germany.)

mike shurtleff
2012-03-24 15:15:21.0

@timallard (comment 40)
I completely agree algae oil is a great renewable source of oil and it will be increasingly valuable for the plastics industry, fertilizers, air travel, and long haul trucking, BUT there is more than one solution here. A well-to-wheels analysis will tell you solar, together with EVs and PHEVs (EREVs), is the most cost efficient and energy efficient replacement for imported oil. (Martin Roscheisen made this observation in 2008 and it remains true today.)

Trevor Bond
2012-03-22 14:41:25.0

@ Steve here is a petition regarding a tax on pollution. If you want to have a chance of creating some change you can sign it and forward it to anyone else you think would agree.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/tax-industry-pollution/3SYh97KW

:note an account must be created before you can sign which takes about five minutes

Jan de Boer
2012-03-20 02:57:58.0

@Anonymous/Dan Carazo (comment 6): "If solar has reached parity costs in CA, it's by using China PV panels while US suppliers die."

Well, that is free world trade. I seem to remember that the US is rather keen on that. But maybe that is the famous US exceptionalism, what is forced upon the rest world should not be applied at home.

Jan de Boer
2012-03-20 02:53:35.0

@Rolf (comment 15): The fossil fuel industry tax breaks are not the same as for any industries. Otherwise, they would not have to be written separately into the tax laws. In comparable situations the fossil fuel industry can deduct much larger sums from their taxes.

Trevor Bond
2012-03-20 00:54:21.0

Sorry I was kind of murky about the politics comment as politics are definitely an important part of the switch to renewable sources. What I meant was that I do not associate all of the blame to a single political party nor all the successes to another.

Would hate to see an argument of Democrats and Republicans on this site. I prefer to talk about the politics of a particular situation.

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-20 00:31:10.0

Bob C. You notice that I couldn't respond to your comment fast enough and there has already been another 'political' comment made.YES , we do talk politics here. We socialists always talk politics. And remind many people that 'of the people' is good for the people. Remember, American 'conservatives' aren't conserving resources...they are conserving the past.Your idea of taxing pollution is forward thinking. Creating a cleaner future is positive by eliminating a BAD part of the past. Lean forward. Don't conserve everything just because it is familiar.If we would tax pollution, Exxon and Duke Energy would exponentially increase the worlds wind and solar ASAP. But conservative thinking has us fighting for those last drops of dinosaur sweat.... why, because we can.

Tom Mallard
2012-03-19 22:35:50.0

Fuels for transportation are more readily available by growing algae, on purpose in bio-reactors not ponds. Secondary wastewater effluent cleaned this way is worth 2-gallons a day per person in biodiesel and the water is recycled, avoiding the costs of flocking chemicals and adding in three revenue streams, recycled water removes the cost of new fresh-water, this offset by applying tertiary treatment for full recycling, then the biodiesel and pressed algae cakes are both worth quite a bit to society.

Secondary effluent is half-by-weight dissolved solids, alage food as if you release it into a lake it causes algae blooms, this for a city like Phoenix, AZ, is 41.5-million pounds a day worth a bit above $9-million/day or $3.4 billion a year at $400/ton if you could sell it for the growing value but you can't because of pathogens. That's a lot of growing value however if put to this use and the return is quite a bit of transportation fuels where in the USA we burn some 474-million gallons a day of all types of fuels with 300-million people that's 1.58-gallons a day per person to give some feel for the volume potential of this resource.

But it's really hard to create a bio-reactor to grow algae compared to landing on Mars or cracking crude oil so don't expect such advanced technology until the political climate changes.

Until then we are raising sea-level by melting down Greenland at 150-billion tons of ice a year more than it accumulates, two-days worth of calving on its largest glacier is worth a year's supply of fresh-water for NYC for scale. I think there is one nuke in the USA that co-generates it's waste-heat to some degree, also in Phoenix where it's illegal to put up standard sized solar panels on homes and all the power is sold to California.

We'll see how it goes on this.

Trevor Bond
2012-03-19 20:31:18.0

@ Steve... Would not call myself a Democrat though I do tend to agree with Democrat policies more often (particularly socially), but this site is not for politics. The tax just makes perfect sense to me, and I have yet to find a reason not to employ it besides the the interests of people with money in coal, oil etc.

ANONYMOUS
2012-03-19 19:37:10.0

JdeBoer

Your comments on nuclear & coal are on the dot. Very well said!

The huge difference between installed costs in Germany & the USA is due to far lower planning and installation costs due to:

$ streamlined permitting accompanying the Feed-in-Tariffs,

$ simpler planning made possible by a generous country-wide system. (This generous support is due to concern about the environment and the absence of vested oil interests)

$ low cost diligent & well qualified labour from adjacent eastern countries

$ more experience due to the above

John Bronson
2012-03-19 18:15:51.0

rolf-westgard-67277 wrote:

'Oil is so expensive it isn't used for electric power, except in places like Hawaii where that's all there is.'

Actually there isn't any oil production in Hawaii. All of the oil is imported. As is coal, and biodiesel for power generation. And although just a little over 1% of US power generation is from oil, globally that number is over 5%. Japan and Saudi Arabia could reduce a large amount of their oil consumption by adding more solar power. If there was ever low hanging fruit, this is it.

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-19 15:08:59.0

Bob, Spoken like a true Democrat. I agree whole heartedly.We'd see BIG OIL and BIG COAL exit the dirty game fast, and build solar and wind farms in droves. Now...try to sell this idea to John Boehner.

Trevor Bond
2012-03-19 14:51:23.0

I would like to see all subsidies abolished and put heavy pollution taxes in their place. Typically subsidies create net economic drag (short term), whereas taxes on pollution produce net economic gain because they give tax revenue and give all the benefits of reducing pollution. This is the fairest thing to do in my opinion because companies can pollute at the cost of innocent people for free without taxes. Also, instead of pushing some alternative sources of energy production over others the free market will determine which ones produce the greatest benefit to society.

Tom Mallard
2012-03-19 10:48:06.0

Professional PV installers are very onto balancing the tricky hookups. Consider that in Phoenix, AZ, full-sized panels are illegal for residential, "unsightly", forcing the industry to produce PV's shaped like tiles at more expense.

This pointing out the regulatory game is at the detail level, top-down matters not, what matters is what you can do with your home.

Trough collectors suffer the same fate and can supply the total heat for a home more efficiently than any other type of system, thus homes need electricity or other inputs that normally are quite simple to install.

With the advent of LED's, that reduces the power needed for lighting in the home, down to electronics and appliances then for daily need from the PV-battery system.

For industry, consider that solar-direct, light processed lasers can power manufacturing robots, the electronics easy for PV-battery, and so on. No inputs, off-the-grid in a sunny climate, quite a price-per-unit advantage to do so.

Jan de Boer
2012-03-19 10:25:16.0

@ Anonymous (comment 4): Since the PV hardware market is a world market, the difference in system costs between the U.S. Germany can only come from installation costs and/or regulation costs. Is it the inexperience of the American installers? Is it expensive permits? Is it that the grid operator requires expensive, but unnecessary, hardware? And most of all: what can be done about it?

Jan de Boer
2012-03-19 10:18:33.0

@Rolf: Since you repeat yourself, I will do it also:

If nuclear is so great:
Why does it have to be insured for free by the taxpayer?
Why does the taxpayer have to pay to store and guard the waste?
Why is there still no real solution for the waste that remains dangerous for 350000 years?
Why does it need hidden subsidies and tax-breaks?
Why do serious nuclear accidents happens like clockwork?
Why do newly built nuclear plants turn out twice as expensive as planned?

If coal is so great:
Why are the external cost larger than the marginal cost of the produced electricity.
Why are they a major contributor to climate change?
Why do they need hidden subsidies and tax-breaks?
Why does the mining of the coal destroy landscapes and nature?

mike shurtleff
2012-03-18 20:49:42.0

Dan Carazo,
You said: "Despite the SEIA's report, I am not yet sold on solar parity cost. If solar has reached parity costs in CA, it's by using China PV panels while US suppliers die."

Solar is definitely below end-of-grid parity in Hawaii, at peak rate times in S. Cal., and in a number of other places in the world. Do some inet reading on Silicon Genesis, Twin Creeks, AOS (Optical Cavity Furnace), Morgan Solar, and Soitec, just to name a few new solar tech companies. The cost of solar will continue to head down. The cost of all fossil fuels will continue to go up. Solar will be dropping below grid parity in ever increasing areas throughout the world. In fact, wake up, because solar is going to become a cheaper and more dominant source of energy than conservation by the end of this decade. (Not that your companies line of work isn't a great. It is.)

Also, First Solar in the USA is still the largest single manufacture of solar PV panels and it is still profitable. China now has the biggest share of PV panel production, but they are not the only ones making money and some Chinese solar companies have bit the dust, a lot of them are currently selling at a loss. The USA, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan still have some of the best PV technology.

mike shurtleff
2012-03-18 20:13:26.0

Solar matches daytime peak use nearly perfectly allowing reduced use of expensive oil derived electricity during the day. Oil can still be used at night if necessary. This alone can reduce Hawaii's oil use and power bills by a large and increasing margin.
LED lighting cuts down on night-time power use. Lithium batteries continue to get better and are dropping in cost. Lithium batteries will already fill the bill at a reasonable cost based on deep-cycle life. Heat or cold can be stored cheaply for nighttime AC.
Sorry, I don't see you have much of a point. Maybe you still feel if men were meant to fly then God would have given us wings. Flat earth society views will not prevail.

'TIPPING POINT!' ;-)

rolf westgard
2012-03-18 16:43:23.0

Oil is so expensive it isn't used for electric power, except in places like Hawaii where that's all there is. The there are those nasty clouds and 17-18 hours when there isn't sun.

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-18 16:19:19.0

you can say "Tipping Point , can't ya "?

mike shurtleff
2012-03-18 14:54:15.0

Solar is cheaper than oil now. That's hugely important because solar can help replace oil for transportation right now and that is the biggest economic and strategic problem the USA has.
Coal electricity is still cheaper than solar, but this will be changing in South Africa by 2015. They have $0.17/kWh electricity, well over 95% of this is from coal, and they have the best solar resources in the world, with the possible exception of N. Africa. Solar is already cheaper than coal in Hawaii since they would have to import all of it. Solar will be cheaper than coal in sunny areas of the continental USA before 2030.
NG is a great bridge fuel, but there is not enough to last for long if you try to use it for everything.

mike shurtleff
2012-03-18 14:49:32.0

Rolf Westgard,
An accurate retort to the foolish and backward looking $/kWh subsidy argument can be found here:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/aei-economist-fumbles-big-time-on-cost-of-renewables/ - March 2012
"AEI Economist Fumbles Big Time on Cost of Renewables"
" 'Focusing on a single year's data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years across all energy fuels and technologies.' " "So what if we actually compared subsidies to various energy technologies based upon historical data? A report from the venture capital firm DBL Investors did just that, and found that federal investments in oil and gas were 'five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidies' life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.' "
The accurate truth is solar power development is being straggled by disinformation and political influence coming from big coal and oil. Solar is the obvious choice for most of our power in the future and it is already economical (i.e. at end-of-grid parity) in some areas in the USA, eg. Hawaii and at peak rate times in S. Cal.

Peter Lynch,
You are making the right argument but let's be clear: Solar is already cheaper than oil. This is why solar electricity is now cheaper than oil generated electricity in Hawaii. Hawaii's electricity rates went up to $0.33/kWh to $0.45/kWh as of September 2011 because most of their electricity is generated using bunker oil fueled generators. Solar is cheaper there and that advantage will increase. The price of crude has gone up since last September and the cost of solar has gone down. They are starting to convert to solar in a big way now. Also, EV and PHEVs are less expensive to drive around using electricity, even solar electricity, than oil derived fuels (gasoline and diesel).

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-18 12:07:05.0

Come on Rolf, (again) it's about leveling the field and getting to a cleaner future. big oil and big coal would be invited to play as well BUT we will get what we subsidize.

John Christensen
2012-03-18 11:58:52.0

Come on Rolf, the direct subsidies are necessary to grow the industry until there is certainty for the business and industry to get established. When so-called grid-parity is reached the direct subsidies will not be needed as much, when solar is cheaper than fossil we can move the industry without any subsidies, many new jobs will be created, the environment will be cleaner, what's not to like.

rolf westgard
2012-03-18 06:57:24.0

If costs for and solar are down so much, why do they need all those direct subsidies and 'must take' laws? The AWEA tells us that if the 2.2cents/kwh wind subsidy goes away, so does the wind industry.

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
2012-03-18 01:50:02.0

From the beginning of solar energy for power,US has been in the forefront.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail:anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Gary McCallum
2012-03-17 00:22:12.0

My two cents worth.
Though the US is lagging behind in solar it may work out in her favour and for the better. There is a large stock of under valued houses that are prime candidates for energy upgrades and renovations. A rise in confidense and employment will enable the banks to get back to lending enabling the purchase of these low cost homes. There is a skilled construction work force that is under employed and more than willing to accept oportunities doing what they love. The cost of PV installations has drastically decreased and is more affordable for the PV energy solutions that are going to be our future. There is a new type of solar panel coming out that is designed to exploit all these factors.
A well directed government with its eye on the green tech and a more than willing American public is poised to lift the US out of its economic slump. A revolution in automobiles is coming where light weight efficient solar EV's are going to be a major component of our near future.
It may be late coming but better late than never.

Tom Mallard
2012-03-16 23:17:50.0

Noting that cold is made from heat in ice-houses using ammonia style systems that are great for producing party-ice on top of the air conditioning load, most of that power going to moving air and very little to actually creating the cold.

To become more efficient on cooling, use thermal-fluids to collect, store & distribute cold on a daily cycle without much power versus air to move cold which I think most people here know is really bad in specific heat.

John Bronson
2012-03-16 23:02:50.0

sosey wrote:

"A question - when the author talks about annual PV installations - is that in theoretical capacity - or does it reflect the actual output expected from the infrastructure given typical sun hours? Same question goes for those who talk about grid parity."

The figures mentioned are for max capacity in direct sunlight. Output in kwh would be the rated capacity x average hours of sunlight in a given area. E.g. the sunniest areas in the US southwest get 6 hrs average.

Grid parity is when the cost of solar power matches the retail price of electricity in a given area.

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-16 13:59:57.0

Ron P, That's the good news...the price is continually dropping.
Coal and oil are continuing UP in price.Wind and solar are continuing DOWN in price. Bang the drum slowly.Chances are that if you are reading this site you already know that. More and more of the general public has figured out, or are getting it soon. As an advocate, remind your local elected officials, especially your PUC. City, State, University and other large and long range thinkers need to get on board ; remind them post peak fossil fuels will only get worse with time.PLAN for the future. Don't let it happen to you.

Ron Peterson
2012-03-16 13:17:10.0

The high rate of depreciation is a factor slowing the rate of adoption of solar.

If the price of solar is dropping by 20% per year, the profit on the generated power needs to be 20% to break even.

Mitch Vine
2012-03-16 13:01:39.0

A question - when the author talks about annual PV installations - is that in theoretical capacity - or does it reflect the actual output expected from the infrastructure given typical sun hours? Same question goes for those who talk about grid parity.

rolf westgard
2012-03-16 12:24:33.0

The difference is that oil and gas subsidies are depreciation tax breaks that are used by all businesses. Oil and gas is big and profitable, so those tax deductions are worth a lot. Wind and solar lose money so they don't have profits for deductions. So their subsidies are direct cash handouts from rate payers and taxpayers - along with mandated must take deals at higher than market prices. Without these as the industry admits, the wind and solar business goes as quiet as wind turbines on those muggy summer days when their isn't a "breath of air". And all ACs are running.

Peter Lynch
2012-03-16 11:42:07.0

Rolf

Your point ? Of course the subsidies are lower per barrel of energy - who is stupid enough not to know that.

Oil and Gas has been been on government subsidies since the late 1800's, over 100 years - of course their per barrel is lower ?

So once again - what is your point ??

Solar is the obvious energy source of the future since it is the ONLY source that can handle future demand over the next 50 to 100 years. If you want solar to be "cheaper" than oil tomorrow - it will probably not work. But over the longer term it is the only alternative that will work assuming that we have a plan which will enable us to do this in a reasonable manner and allow us to be positioned when the rate of change of fossil fuels starts to accelerate as we get closer to peak oil...

We have to be in position to make the transition and it will take decades but we have to start NOW.

Tom Mallard
2012-03-16 10:57:49.0

I'll mention a big move among homeowners in two ways, first are the off-the-grid people that have used PV-battery for decades and that arena is growing fast, and in urban areas homes are getting thermal analysis and a lot of insulation, then going grid-tied PV and making money.

This process removes millions of homes from the grid, not to mention other ways to gather heat, cold & power but these seem lost on people. For example the classic trough collector in an attic facing south can produce >500F on a clear day, that's easy to store using thermal-fluids in insulated tanks for later use on-demand, most homes can not require electricity for space-heating, hot-water, laundry and other heating needs without transforming energy and heat is simple to store & retrieve.

The 3.5kw windmill is illegal or you would see them everwhere, another aspect of the power game, political control. In Mariposa Country where Phoenix is has some 320-clear days of sunshine and no full-sized solar-panels because they are 'unsightly', forcing PV mfg's to come up with tile-like PV's that are more expensive so fewer people install them. They do have a nuclear power plant however, it even co-generates afaik, overheats the Gila River with its outflow and has ruined the riverine habitat and sells all the power to California.

A perfect description of affairs.

So where's the big need for grid power coming from as we move ahead? Many homes off-the-grid offer modern living, it's not like the hippie days of the late 1970's and the initial research into sustainable power that began back then, we have LED's, lithium batteries and better PV's now, everyone has a 5kw diesel generator to handle high current loads like running shop equipment now and then.

Just curious why it matters what the grid can offer, we know the bills from homes that leak heat & cold so that's being removed from them as time moves on by the incentive to avoid $400/month power bills by adding insulation.

rolf westgard
2012-03-16 10:55:31.0

Per the EIA on a per barrel of energy produced, federal subsidies to oil and gas are $0.28 cents. For solar, a whopping $63.
Growth isn't too hard to achieve when you are one tenth of one percent of our supply.

John Christensen
2012-03-16 09:14:35.0

Peter is exactly right, we are working at getting a FIT in a coal state, it ain't easy but it is the only way we will produce certainty in our industry.

Peter Lynch
2012-03-15 22:25:35.0

Even Chinese companies are loosing money at these levels - check out the quarterly reports coming out the past 2 weeks and for next few weeks.

Even at these levels it is simple (at least until there is a major technology breakthrough.

Certainly VS Uncertainty

Just a level playing field re: fossil fuels and solar will boom. But government must help eliminate the uncertainly.

FIT's work, they are proven - just DO IT !!!!!!!

Steve Poppitz
2012-03-15 17:24:19.0

Mr.President, PLEASE publicly thank the Germans and Chinese for driving down the cost of panels. Extend tax credits for years to take out the long range uncertainty. Invite them to show us a thing or two on our soil. Partnerships here in the states. Bring their expertise and experience to where their is demand. And keep pitchin' those eV's!

Jeffrey Spies
2012-03-15 12:19:46.0

It is worth mentioning that average electricity rates in Germany are twice that in California and while they have about 60% of the avg sun hours, the economics are more attractive.

Just wanted to reinforce that it is the investment opportunity that drives solar. Much more than policy, although policy often influences the economics.

Another issue is the definition of grid parity. Customers in active solar markets that purchase a properly designed and installed PV system with quality components (most are not properly designed and installed, or use shoddy products) will find their cost of electricity over the system life to be much less than paying the utility. By my definition, that means that more than just CA and HI are at grid parity. Customers in CO, AZ, NJ, CT, and a number of other states are also at grid parity, heck here in AZ, customers are much better than grid parity. A kWh from a quality PV system will be less than half the price of paying the utility company.

If we are talking utility scale solar, then grid parity may only be in a couple states, but the utility PV sector grew so fast this past year, we are likely closer than many would acknowledge.

ANONYMOUS
2012-03-15 12:14:39.0

Despite the SEIA's report, I am not yet sold on solar parity cost. If solar has reached parity costs in CA, it's by using China PV panels while US suppliers die. Only 2 years ago New Yorkers received up to 50% state refund for resi installs, so I want to report on impact of government funding. In January I asked SEIA for a response to include in my energy efficiency blog. I was told that the industry association was too busy to respond. I understand being busy, but since SEIA is the industry association for the US market, I asked wasn't anyone capable of completing some input to my 3 questions so I could update the electrical distribution channel I write for? I'm still waiting!

QUESTION 1:
What is the most important national trend that will impact and help shape the US Solar Industry in 2012?
Please explain how this trend could affect the US Solar Industry in the coming year and beyond.

QUESTION 2:
Does your organization project industry growth in 2012, in the form of an increase in the total installed US solar
power output or number of planned projects compared to 2011? If yes, what do you see as the primary drivers?
If no, describe the biggest challenges facing the industry.

QUESTION 3:
What actions if taken by local, state or national government would be most critical to the continued growth
and prosperity of the US Solar Industry? To what degree do you expect beneficial governmental support for
the US Solar Industry to materialize in 2012?

I will try again this month.

Dan Carazo
Slash Energy Incorporated
Branding & Marketing Specialists for the
Electrical, Lighting & Energy Efficiency Industries

Peter Lynch
2012-03-15 10:35:54.0

JdeBoer

Not sad, pathetic.

There is no energy plan or policy at this time except for the fossil fuel backed plan - make sure that any renewable energy
plan is based upon "uncertainly" as to its length of time.

All fossil fuel subsidies are IN the tax code - i.e. will not change easily and are relatively "certain". ALL renewable subsidies are totally uncertain and when it comes to renewing them at the end of a year or a few years it is ALWAYS last minute - i.e. "maybe" - uncertainty.

One thing for CERTAIN is that uncertainty will always keep serious investors away. The reason Germany was so successful was that FIT's were certain and therefore fine for investors to participate.

ANONYMOUS
2012-03-15 07:00:58.0

Jigar, how smart is US policy if total German installed costs (including the cost of subsidies)are 40% lower? Germany leads, and the US is today a third rate installer of renewables -- due to its vested oil & coal interests.

Germany installed more PV in a month (~3 GW in December) than the US in a year.

Jan de Boer
2012-03-14 13:05:51.0

@ Jigar: I doubt that this was a concious strategy, but you may be right and it could work out that way. However, since the current German government is more concerned about the well being of the vested interests in the power industry, than in the development of the PV technology, it would be a good thing if the US would take over the leading role.

Jigar Shah
2012-03-14 08:38:13.0

Not sad, smart. The US market is now growing exponentially after Germany paid for all of the "scaling" costs. The cost of the US solar program subsidies will be less than a 1% rate increase nationwide, far lower than Germany's cost. We have reached grid parity in California and Hawaii. More states coming by 2016.

Jan de Boer
2012-03-14 07:07:28.0

It is rather sad that a large country like the US with an excellent solar resource in the Southern States is still lagging behind a much smaller country like Germany that has much less sunshine.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Jennifer Runyon

Jennifer Runyon is chief editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, features, news stories and blogs for the publications. She also serves as conference chair of...