solar voltaic power

The greening of golf, baseball, and the Olympics, oh my!

Your sports roundup for the week: Golf: Golf’s reputation is far from green — but tee-ers are trying their darnedest to move in a green direction. That includes Augusta National Golf Course, current host of the Masters tournament. The club is not on the list of some 300 courses that have received a stamp of […]

A long-term extension of the solar investment tax credit is vital

Joe is correct to point out that solar energy is not a monolith -- but he's got the categories wrong. The relevant division is not between technologies but markets.

Market No. 1 is distributed generation solar -- that is, solar sited on the customer side of the meter, serving on-site load. Think rooftops. This market will be served almost exclusively by photovoltaics (for electricity -- hot water is another case) -- and the relevant cost comparison is the retail price of electricity, not wholesale generation values.

Market No. 2 is utility-scale solar -- that is, central station generation for wholesale power. Think big plants in the desert that sell electricity to utilities for further distribution and sale to their customers. The relevant cost comparison is the future price of non-renewable alternatives, such as coal. This market will be served by many different technologies, including solar thermal electric (from parabolic troughs to power towers) to concentrated photovoltaic to dish Stirling engines to thin film solar of various flavors.

Entrepreneur Lyndon Rive wants to solarize your house for a low, low price

Would you pay $25,000 to $30,000 to put solar panels on your home? If you’re like most cash-strapped Americans, you’d balk at that five-figure expense, no matter how green you aspire to be. OK, what if you could do it for $1,000 or $2,000? SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive. SolarCity, based in sunny Silicon Valley, has […]

Concentrated solar power is already doing great; no breakthroughs needed

Almost certainly not and absolutely not. I give two answers here because there are two very different types of solar energy:

1. Solar photovoltaics, PV, which is direct conversion of sunlight to electricity. It is well known, high-tech, uneconomically expensive in most parts of this country (but poised to resume dropping sharply in price), and intermittent (power only when the sun shines).
   
2. Solar thermal electric or concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses mirrors to focus sunlight to heat a fluid to run a turbine or engine to make electricity. It is, as I've blogged, "The solar power you don't hear about." It is relatively low-tech, competitive today (and poised to drop sharply in price), and can be made load-following (matching the demand curve during the day and evening) and possibly baseload (round-the-clock).

Absent major subsidies, solar PV is simply not a big-time winner (in terms of kWh delivered cost-effectively) in rich countries with built-out electric grids in the near term. It is, however, a big winner in the medium-term (post-2020). I don't agree with the Scientific American article that calls for a massive $400 billion 40-year plan for solar. I have been meaning to blog that it has many weaknesses, in my mind. No energy efficiency. No wind. Heck, nothing but PV and CSP, and it looks to be mostly PV, which needs expensive storage.

Paid in the shade

You’ve got to give credit to Felicity Barringer for this sentence: If he succeeds, the state that legalized medical marijuana may soon do the same for shade.

Solar’s new mega-plants

Good stuff. (Thanks, Brian)

Van Jones on Colbert Report

Am I the only one who just doesn’t much like the Colbert Report? The interviews, especially. Colbert always comes off like a dickhead — that’s his shtick — but the guests are in a catch-22 as well. They look bad if they play along and bad if they try to play it straight. It just […]

Small wind in urban settings

I never really thought much about small wind's potential as a significant source of a city's electricity supply. Windmills in a urban setting? I just don't see it.

Didn't see it, that is, until I saw it. The other day I biked by 1303 Alabama St., in the Mission District of San Francisco. Softly -- very softly -- whirring overhead is a 1.9 kW Southwest Windpower Skystream windmill. The Choose Renewables resource estimator says that it's a class 3 wind site, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually higher. As any San Franciscan knows, the Mission can be very sunny and pleasant during a summer day, but on summer evenings, as the marine layer moves in, the wind just nukes over Twin Peaks and the South Mission/Noë area can be a wind tunnel.

The result, I expect, makes for propitious economics. The house also has a 5 kW SunPower solar system. California's system peak is shifting later and later, which is being reflected in PG&E's tariffs. The old E-7 Residential Time of Use (which is being phased out) had a summer peak of 12 to 6 p.m. The new E-6 has a summer peak of 1 to 7 p.m., and a partial peak of 7 to 9 p.m. In practice, that means that as the solar system's production winds down in the early evening, the windmill steps in and produces electricity that would have cost up to 53 cents/kWh if bought from the utility.

That's just a wonky way of saying that wind and solar are like peanut butter and chocolate: great on their own, but even better together.

Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically

Well lookie here! A series of manufacturing process improvements could make the cost of electricity from silicon-based solar cells comparable to today’s prices for coal generation within about four years, according to a company emerging out of stealth today. The company, 1366 Technologies, will be using technologies developed in MIT labs to reduce the manufacturing […]