Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: With an on-line time of 10 hours per day, that's 39% of nameplate rating. Averaged over 24 hours, it's 16%. That is interesting. Thanks for the info. This site says that overall efficiency for residential installations varies from 13% to 18%, which is in line with your experience: http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels The EIA calls this the capacity factor, by the way. The Renewable Energy World article says that most installations are non-residential and utility: Residential 792 MW Non-Residential 1,112 MW Utility 2,846 MW Total 4,751 MW I do not know what non-residential means. Utility means the power companies. Anyway, my guess is that Utility installations have higher overall efficiency than Residential because they are placed in optimum locations, and in some cases they have tracking systems or concentration. So I am guessing that overall efficiency for all 4,751 MW is at least 20%, and maybe a little better. I cannot find an on-line source for this. Anyway, if it is 20% this is equivalent to 950 GW, which is about as much as an average U.S. nuke plant actual. Even nukes do not run at 100% of nameplate capacity. In other words, last year PV added about as much actual capacity as one nuclear plant. At this rate, in 100 years, we will have roughly as much PV as we now have nukes, which is to say ~20% of total generating capacity. Putting it that way makes the 4,751 MW seem less impressive. PV still barely resisters in electric power generation in the U.S. The EIA says that in 2012 it was 0.12% of all electricity (a 1% share of 12% of total generation): http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/renewable_electricity.cfm It says wind was 3.36% in 2012 (a 28% share of 12%). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
Here is a table with the actual numbers for 2003 to 2013: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 Click on the Graph at the top right for an interesting look at the data. Then on the box on the top right, View a pre-generated report see 1.1.A Net Generation by Other Renewables: Total - All Sectors. Others are mostly wind (the brown line). It varies a great deal by season. Solar (the green line) barely registers at the bottom. You can move the cursor on the colored lines in the graph to see what the lines represent and what the underlying numbers are; i.e. Wind, Oct 2011, 10,525 thousand megawatthours. You gotta love the EIA. Getting back to the table -- Renewables excluding hydro but including wind, geothermal, PV and so on are glommed together in one category: Renewable Sources Excluding Hydroelectric. You can see the dramatic decline in coal generation, and the rise of natural gas. Coal has fallen by 387,739 (thousand megawatt hours), while gas has risen 463,757. Overall generation has increased only a little, by 175,024. Nuclear and hydroelectricity remain stable, as you would expect, since there are no new nukes or dams. Renewables go from 79,487 to 253,328, increasing by a factor of 3. That is impressive but it is still only 1/6th of coal and only 1/16 of the total (6%). The total for 2013 is 4,058,209. I do not think the coal companies are quaking in their boots, worried about competition from PV. They fear natural gas and wind. Petroleum liquids are approaching zero. They are only used in Hawaii, I believe. It makes no sense to burn oil to generate electricity. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
BTW - does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? http://ultrasolar.com/files/QuantumBoost%20Summary.pdf This could be a significant breakthrough in solar. It is an add-on which increases the output of exiting cells by 20%. Thus 2.5 kW existing system becomes 3 kW for less cost and space than the value added. It appears to be what can only be called a positive feedback mechanism and thus could be relevant to other systems besides PV. From: Jed Rothwell Here is a table with the actual numbers for 2003 to 2013: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 Click on the Graph at the top right for an interesting look at the data. Then on the box on the top right, View a pre-generated report see 1.1.A Net Generation by Other Renewables: Total - All Sectors. Others are mostly wind (the brown line). It varies a great deal by season. Solar (the green line) barely registers at the bottom. You can move the cursor on the colored lines in the graph to see what the lines represent and what the underlying numbers are; i.e. Wind, Oct 2011, 10,525 thousand megawatthours. You gotta love the EIA. Getting back to the table -- Renewables excluding hydro but including wind, geothermal, PV and so on are glommed together in one category: Renewable Sources Excluding Hydroelectric. You can see the dramatic decline in coal generation, and the rise of natural gas. Coal has fallen by 387,739 (thousand megawatt hours), while gas has risen 463,757. Overall generation has increased only a little, by 175,024. Nuclear and hydroelectricity remain stable, as you would expect, since there are no new nukes or dams. Renewables go from 79,487 to 253,328, increasing by a factor of 3. That is impressive but it is still only 1/6th of coal and only 1/16 of the total (6%). The total for 2013 is 4,058,209. I do not think the coal companies are quaking in their boots, worried about competition from PV. They fear natural gas and wind. Petroleum liquids are approaching zero. They are only used in Hawaii, I believe. It makes no sense to burn oil to generate electricity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW - does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? Is this the quantum dots that absorb heat? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz200166y
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW - does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? Is this the quantum dots that absorb heat? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz200166y Here's more on the MEG (unfortunate acronym). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_exciton_generation
RE: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
That QD thing is similar but probably not the same. I get the feeling that Quantum Boost is being deliberately coy and deceptive with their disclosure - which is why I was curious to get more information. However, it does seem quite significant since it permits old installations to be upgraded. For instance the 5 GW installed in 2013 becomes 6 with the upgrade. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton BTW - does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? Is this the quantum dots that absorb heat? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz200166y
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
I called Ultra Solar since they're only 30 miles from me and I have a PV system in place. The phone number on their web site goes to an anonymous voice mail box that seems to be full. They're probably defunct. I don't see how it could work as claimed anyway. It sits in the DC path between the PV modules and inverter. Grid tied inverters are required to be 94% efficient or better for subsidy in California, and some spec as much as 98%. So where does the claimed Quantum Boost gain come from? AlanG On 3/7/2014 7:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: BTW -- does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? http://ultrasolar.com/files/QuantumBoost%20Summary.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
Alan, It is suspicious. Glad you called. However, as for the circuit - extrapolating from the info on their site seems to indicate that pyroelectric pulses occur in the modules and these are fed back to the cell for some kind of a positive feedback loop. Perhaps a sharp HV pulse, fed back through the electrodes, is amplified somehow? Perhaps they are defunct for this very reason? Hopefully not but it is suspicious. From: AlanG I called Ultra Solar since they're only 30 miles from me and I have a PV system in place. The phone number on their web site goes to an anonymous voice mail box that seems to be full. They're probably defunct. I don't see how it could work as claimed anyway. It sits in the DC path between the PV modules and inverter. Grid tied inverters are required to be 94% efficient or better for subsidy in California, and some spec as much as 98%. So where does the claimed Quantum Boost gain come from? AlanG On 3/7/2014 7:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: BTW - does anyone have more info on Quantum Boost than is on their website? http://ultrasolar.com/files/QuantumBoost%20Summary.pdf
[Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/03/us-solar-celebrates-records-in-2013-big-trends-coming-in-2014 Various stats. Article lead: Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the U.S. topped 4.78 GW in 2013, an increase of 41 percent over 2012, according to the annual market review and outlook published today by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and GTM Research. . . . 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Still, that's a lot. I suppose it is at least as much as a 1 GW nuke. They could do this in Japan for 4 years to replace the Fukushima reactor capacity. They have plenty of rooftops there. In southern Japan this gives you power when you most need it, during peak demand hours. Better than wind in that respect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
40% of flux Depends how fast your robowasher is. It pays to invest in one of the new sprint models On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
Just go to pull-a-part and get all their windshield washers. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:23 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: 40% of flux Depends how fast your robowasher is. It pays to invest in one of the new sprint models On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
I installed a 2.5 kw system in Feb 2003. The inverter currently shows 38,883 kwh since start-up. That averages to 9.7 kwh/day. With an on-line time of 10 hours per day, that's 39% of nameplate rating. Averaged over 24 hours, it's 16%. AlanG On 3/6/2014 3:11 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:11:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares? The surface of the planet has an area of 4Pir^2, while the area exposed to the sun has an area of Pir^2, hence you wouldn't get more than 25% on average if you had panels all over the planet's surface. (You already lose 50% due to night/day). If you live near the equator, you get better results than if you live near the poles. You also get better results if you track the sun. Furthermore, atmospheric absorption is higher at dawn and at dusk than it is at midday, and cloudy days really throw a spanner in the works. All in all, I suspect you wouldn't be doing too badly if you got 30%. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
