Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010

5 Reasons Why Going Solar is About More Than Just Money : TreeHugger

Whether it's the moral case for embracing renewables, or the way that solar panels change your relationship to energy, we've heard many an argument for why Return On Investment (ROI) is not the be-all-and-end-all for deciding when to go solar. Usually these arguments tend to be seen as a justification for why the wealthier among us may want to invest in solar but, with recent news that solar may become as cheap as coal by 2015, they take on a whole new aspect. Because once prices start to converge, solar has considerable competitive advantage for almost everybody compared to conventional energy sources like coal.

I started musing on this some more having read Erik Frazier's post over at Renewable Energy World on why Return on Investment in solar should be just one factor among many in deciding whether or not to install photovoltaics on your home. From resale value to hedging against energy price rises, Frazier makes the case that we should think in much broader terms than simple ROI when we talk about the solar cost-benefit analysis. It's time, he argues, to consider the "less tangible benefits that solar PV can provide", so I thought I'd take a stab at outlining a few more of my own:

1. The Moral Argument for Going Solar
As Brian argued in his piece on why focusing on grid parity does renewables a disservice, there is an urgent case to be made for embracing renewable energy, regardless of the immediate economic costs. After all, how do we put a price tag on a stable climate, and how do we evaluate the true cost of oil, coal and natural gas that are being externalized by energy companies not paying their way? By investing in solar, or other renewables, home owners take a major stand against the old fashioned extractive economies, and for a cleaner, more innovative future. That's something that's hard to put a price on.

2. Ownership and Engagement
By taking charge of the energy we produce, we literally transform how we think about power. This is no longer something that is "bought" from a centralized utility, but rather something that we can take control of ourselves. Either as home owners, or as communities, we have the opportunity to harness natural forces and produce our own electricity. And as I demonstrated in my post about solar encouraging energy conservation, we are more likely to value resources that we take responsibility for ourselves. So here we see a non-tangible benefit (a sense of ownership) transforming itself into very real, very substantial energy savings as homeowners change the way they consumer electricity.

3. Keeping Up with the Joneses
There's no doubt that the competitive tendencies that our consumer culture encourages can have significant negative impacts. From encouraging bigger and bigger McMansions, to inciting riots and a sense of material entitlement, the idea that you are what you own is not the brightest pinnacle of human thought. Nevertheless, solar advocates would do well to find ways to harness our baser competitive instincts and encourage solar as a status symbol. After all, if we must compete over something, why not have our neighbors compete their way to the smallest energy footprint?

4. Building Resilience
Frazier touched on this in his original piece, suggesting that a hedge against future energy spikes was a smart move on a simple economic basis. And it's true—even major corporations like IKEA are making significant investments in renewables to insure against energy price volatility. But solar can potentially provide a much broader contribution to household or community resilience. While grid-tied solar systems will do little if power is out, either off-grid solar systems, or grid-tied with battery back up solar systems, can help keep the lights on when the power goes out. And if we start thinking of resilience on a community-scale, a distributed grid of diversified energy sources can have significant benefits over purely centralized supply. As energy storage becomes more viable, these benefits will only increase.

5. Innovation for Innovation's Sake
While resilience, doing good, and even "solar as status symbol" may all play a role in why early adopters choose to go solar, we shouldn't forget one of the simplest reasons why any new technology starts selling—it's new. We already know that human beings are hardwired to crave novelty, so is it any wonder that a significant portion of the population (myself included) is quite simply fascinated by the challenge and the opportunities in engineering an alternative to business-as-usual?

The 20th Century paradigm of the extractive economy is, quite frankly, boring, and it is time to do things differently. Whether that means embracing solar, or exploring new ways of organizing like collaborative consumption, or all of the above and more, the fact is that newness is itself a competitive advantage, and one that clean energy advocates would do well to make use of.

True, the economics of solar are crucially important in gaining wide-spread adoption, but as with any true cost-benefit analysis we have to be very careful about how we define our parameters. A clean energy source that can operate for decades to come with minimal upkeep, and zero additional fossil fuel use, is something that is so radically different to coal, gas or oil that it seems almost silly to compare the two on pure, narrow economic terms alone. But as the purely economic comparisons themselves start to converge, the non-economic arguments become ever more important too. Because that's when we step out front and win.

More on Solar and Renewables
Asking When Solar Will Reach Grid Parity is the Wrong Question
IKEA Buys 9MW Wind Farm, Plans 3MW of Solar
Solar Panels Promote Conservation: The Behavior Change of Going Solar
Solar May Be as Cheap as Coal by 2015

SolSource 3-in-1

In rural regions of the Himalayas, a new lightweight, low cost, portable solar cooker called the SolSource 3-in-1 is poised to transform the health and prosperity of entire villages. The device, which can replace the hazardous traditional biomass-burning stove as a means for cooking and heating the home, can also use its own waste thermal energy to generate enough electricity to light a home at night, charge cell phones and power other small devices. And because the cooker's unique design targets specific local needs and materials, its manufacture and distribution could provide a new economic future for communities in transition from agricultural to manufacturing economies.

The satellite dish-shaped SolSource, developed by US-based nonprofit One Earth Designs, is elegant in its simplicity. Reflective nomadic tent material, stretched across a bamboo frame, concentrates sunlight from a large area inward toward a focal point where the user can place a pot stand for cooking, a thermoelectric device for generating electricity (at a lower cost than a photovoltaic panel), a heat module for heating the home, a solar water disinfector for treating drinking water, or a thermal battery for cooking after dark. These interchangeable parts are each about the size of a laptop computer, and the main platform is easily folded and disassembled for portability.

Which Solar Panels Offer the Cleanest Conscience?

Solar panel manufacturing has some toxic byproducts, yet more and more people are interested in solar as a clean(er) alternative to fossil fuel dependence. With renewable feed-in tariffs driving massive solar sales in the UK, one watchdog group has set out to find out which solar panels offer the consumer the cleanest conscience, alongside their clean energy.

Writing over at the Guardian, Simon Birch of Ethical Consumer Magazine explains how his organization ranked leading solar manufacturers based on three criteria—controversial activities, toxic pollution, and worker protection.

Of the three issues, the first is probably the most difficult and contentious to define. From BP's culpability in the Gulf oil spill, to Mitsubishi's involvement in the arms industry, Ethical Consumer marked down various companies for activities that they felt their readers would not want to support or be associated with. (No need to ask where they stand on whether morality matters in saving the planet.)

They also looked at issues related to toxic pollution and waste, marking down one (unspecified, in the article at least) company for buying from Luoyang Zhonggui High Technology, a Chinese company that has been accused of dumping toxic waste outside its solar factory.

Finally, they looked at labor issues and workplace safety—with pretty disappointing results. Given the toxicity of some of the materials involved in PV manufacture, ensuring the health and safety of workers should be a top priority. Nevertheless, according to Birch, virtually every company they surveyed received a bottom rating for their supply chain policy. The only notable exception was the Chinese company Yingli, which scored a middle rating because it is adopting an internationally recognized management system for protecting workers' rights, the SA8000.

The original survey of solar companies is behind a pay-wall, so it's hard to evaluate the reports findings or methodology in detail. It's certainly good to see more information out there, not just about the performance and potential of solar, but on the relative ethical merits of different manufacturers. Like any product or technology, it's vital that we ethically minded consumers keep pushing for positive change. Of course, exactly what that "positive change" looks like will vary from consumer to consumer. While some folks may not want to go anywhere near a company involved in the arms trade, others will see defense and military spending as a totally legitimate industry—and may even be delighted to see these sectors moving toward greener tech. (The US Airforce efforts to develop algae biofuels are a classic case in point.)

For the record, GB-Sol, Solarcentury, SolarWorld, and Yingli Solar were the highest ranking companies surveyed. BP Solar came bottom of the heap.

Solar PV Market Analysis

Unstable Boom Times Continue for PV Market

Even using the latest available installation data for Germany as REW goes to press – there is no doubt that more than 4 GWp will have been installed by July 2010, and it is highly likely that despite the upcoming decrease in the tariff, between 6 GWp and 8 GWp are likely by commissioned by the end of 2010 – bringing about significant margin pressure.

How NOT to install solar panels! :-)

I was visiting a small rural hospital here in Haiti (in the town of Verettes, L'Artibonite) the other day and stumbled upon this nice solar water purification installation, installed by Venezuelans as a gift to Haiti after the earthquake.

They used Cuban panels (Numen) and put them on nicely elevated poles to make it more difficult to steal them (which is a major problem here).

So far so good...

However, have a close look at the photos...

The 2 arrays are overlapping and causing serious permanent shading! Quite amazing they left it like this.

Even worse, they were pointing North. Venezuela is in the Southern hemisphere, so these guys are used to pointing their panels North. Haiti is north of the equator though... :-)

SolarPV.TV

Solar industry divided over EU toxic substances law

EurActiv.com, 22 April 2010 - Solar panel manufacturers are fighting to be excluded from EU legislation restricting the use of dangerous chemicals in electronic products. But some voices are calling for greater scrutiny of the industry, sparking a technology war between rival companies

The European solar industry has begun a campaign to exclude photovoltaic solar panels from the recast directive on the restriction of certain hazardous substances (RoHS), which is currently being debated by the EU institutions.

It argues that having to comply with bans and restrictions originally applied to electrical and electronic household appliances would harm the industry's competitiveness without offering any health benefits, while slowing the EU's fight against climate change.

The directive's revision engulfed the solar industry last autumn after Sweden proposed to extend its scope to cover all electrical and electronic equipment. The amendment would bring solar panels within the scope of the directive unless specifically excluded.

The open scope was not part of the original proposal from the European Commission, which consequently did not carry out an impact assessment into it either.

"If solar modules were included in this, we believe it would do much more harm to the environment, society and industry compared to the current situation, where our industry has already in place voluntary recycling programmes for all the different modules which are sold on the market place," said Winfried Hoffman, vice-president of Applied Materials, a semiconductor manufacturer, and vice-president of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA).

Considering the fact that the minimum lifetime of a solar module is 25 years at the moment, it would not be "very logical" to integrate modules into a framework designed to regulate products with short lifespans, which are likely to be dumped at landfills.

Widening the scope of the directive would affect the renewable energy industry at large, as manufacturers of equipment like wind turbines, fuel cells and geothermal power systems would have to demonstrate compliance with the legislation too.

Concerns have already been raised that the new legislation could put renewable energies at a disadvantage compared to fossil fuels, which do not have to comply with the requirements.
MEPs have been divided over whether solar panels should be included in the directive. Some argue that they should be as environmentally friendly as possible, while others think they should be eligible for exemptions.

But the industry would rather see full exclusion from the legislation, arguing that having to apply for renewal every four years would introduce uncertainty to the market. At present companies give their modules warranties of up to 25 years.

A draft European Parliament report, to be voted upon in the environment committee in June, proposes to give an exemption to cadmium in thin-film photovoltaic panels based on cadmium telluride. It argues that the impact of substitution with more energy-intensive and technologically inferior alternatives would outweigh the benefits of using no cadmium.

Counter attack


But not everybody in the industry agrees that voluntary recycling schemes are enough to justify an exclusion from the legislation.

The Non-Toxic Solar Alliance (NTSA), which describes itself as a not-for-profit advocacy group including members of the solar industry, argues that any industry efforts to recycle photovoltaic (PV) modules containing toxic materials require a "sufficient safety guarantee". It wants RoHS to regulate the PV industry to ensure that standards do not encourage the use of toxic materials.

"Keeping modules containing toxic substances in a closed cycle over decades constitutes a significant and yet unsolved challenge," argues Jan Kallmorgen, the NTSA chairman.
Speaking to EurActiv, he argued that the safe use of toxic substances like cadmium and lead in PV modules cannot be guaranteed based on current scientific knowledge.
"There are no independent and public studies available that prove with certainty that the use of toxic substances in PV modules constitutes no risks. Risk factors to be considered include leakage, breakage and fire," he added.

In 2005, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) organised a peer review of major studies on the environmental, health and safety aspects of cadmium tellurate PV systems. It concluded that large-scale use of such modules doesn't present a risk to public health or environment under normal operating conditions.

The NTSA believes that compliance with RoHS would accelerate research and development in non-toxic PV technologies and improve the industry's capacity to meet the EU's climate goals.
"There are many PV technologies in compliance with RoHS that do not contain any of the toxic materials currently restricted by the directive. It is important to understand that CdTe is not the only thin film technology and that clean thin film alternatives, such as amorphous SI or cadmium free CIS/GICS, are available right now and more manufacturers are getting ready to enter the market," Kallmorgen said.

A turf war?


The debate has opposed producers of thin film modules like current PV market leader First Solar, and those of crystalline silicon, which make up around 80% of the market.
The NTSA sides with the silicon cell producers, arguing that manufacturers of such "non-toxic solar technologies" as they call them are put at a competitive disadvantage by the current regulatory framework.

"A level playing field is needed, where all are treated fairly by the same standards. A consequent application of the logic of the RoHS recast would accelerate and strengthen research and development in non-toxic PV technologies," said the NTSA chair.
First Solar uses cadmium telluride (CdTE) as the semiconductor material to ramp up the capacity of its solar cells and convert sunlight into electricity. The technology allows it to produce modules at a significantly lower cost than most of its competitors.

Products containing cadmium telluride and sulphide would not comply with RoHS rules, though.
However, studies assessing the life-cycle emissions of photovoltaic technologies have shown that thin-film cadmium telluride PV performs best environmentally due to energy-efficient production.
Solar World, a major crystalline producer, has announced it is against EPIA's efforts to exempt the solar industry from the RoHS directive.

NTSA says that Solar World is backing its position, but insists that it gets no funding from the company. Rather, it is fully funded by donations from its supporters, mainly scientists and private figures from the solar industry, according to its website.

"The NTSA does not represent the solar industry since nobody knows exactly which companies are behind this organisation. The one and only representation of the solar industry in Europe remains EPIA and we have a unambiguous position on RoHS," Hoffmann stressed.

Positions


European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and PV Cycle, the European association for the voluntary take-back and recycling of photovoltaic modules, warned that extending the scope of the RoHS Directive would not do any favours for the promotion of renewable energies in the EU.
It would "ban certain innovative solar panels from the EU market" and result in "disproportionate compliance costs" due to the different transposition of the directive in member states, they said in a statement. "PV is a young growing industry which is striving to reach competitiveness; resources allocated for the compliance under RoHS will not be allocated elsewhere, to the detriment of technological and R&D investments," they added.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) argued that including renewable energy technologies within the scope of RoHS would be counter-productive in achieving the EU's environmental, energy security and competitiveness objectives.

"The environmental impacts of using renewable energy sources are insignificant when compared to the environmental impacts of non-renewable energy sources," it said in a statement. The sector is a young industry striving for competitiveness, and resources allocated for compliance under RoHS will have to be diverted away from R&D investments, it added, emphasising that sustainability is a key research topic for the sector.

"Were the scope of RoHS to be extended, then a full prior and detailed impact assessment - as required by the Better Regulation principles – should be conducted," it stated.

The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU , the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), Digital Europe and the Japan Business Council in Europe raised concerns that the move to an open scope had not been subject to an impact assessment. They argued that there may not be any viable substitute available in the immediate future for products that would be brought under the scope of the directive.

"Some of these products have systemic importance (power supply and transport), others have important environmental benefits (equipment for renewable energy production) or critical safety implications in the event of failure (for example higher voltage equipment and equipment for specialist or high-end applications). Inclusion in RoHS would effectively mean that these types of equipment are prohibited on the EU market," they said in a statement.

6.4 Gigawatts More Solar Power Installed Last Year

Despite difficult financial circumstances, the global solar industry added additional capacity of 6.4 gigawatts in 2009, according to a new assessment by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association. That takes global capacity to more than 20 GW and represents an increase of 44% (Reuters). Germany remains the largest solar market, followed by Italy, Japan, and the United States.

In Germany capacity grew by 3 GW in 2009, to a total of about 9 GW--though announced cuts in the nations generous feed-in tariffs which have so far helped the not exactly sun-rich country nonetheless lead the world in solar power could rein in that growth.

Elsewhere in Europe, Italy added some 700 MW last year, with the Czech Republic adding 411 MW, Belgium installing 292 MW, and France bringing 185 MW online. Third place Japan saw an additional 484 MW installed, while the US followed closed behind with 475 MW.

In 2010 this latest EPIA assessment projects an additional 8.2 to 12.7 GW to come online. With the expectation that the 30 GW barrier will be crossed sometime in 2014."

Worldwide solar PV market reaches 6.43 GW in 2009

Worldwide solar photovoltaic (PV) installations reached 6.43GW in 2009 – a 6% growth from 2008, according to the latest ‘Marketbuzz 2010 Report’ from market research and consulting company Solarbuzz.

Read on...

Solar Generation V

Solar Generation V: electricity for over 1 billion people and 2 million jobs by 2020
a report by EPIA and Greenpeace.

The world's largest solar PV power plants

Olmedilla, Spain, 60 MW

 Straßkirchen, Germany, 54 MW

 Turnow-Preilack, Germany, 53 MW

 Puertollano, Portugal, 50 MW

There are hundreds more! Click here.

The Renewable Energy Policy Network REN21, has launched a Renewables Interactive Map

The renewable energy map contains information on renewable energy, including support policies, expansion targets, current shares, installed capacity, current production, future scenarios, and policy pledges.

Global Solar Report Card

Sure, that might look like a lot of panels, but we've still got a long way to go.

The Global Solar Report Card, published by Mikhail Gorbachev's Green Cross International and Global Green USA, once again gives top honors to Germany for its continued abundance of installed systems and the country's pro-solar policies that facilitate ease of installations. Think your country should have made the list? Keep reading to find out if they made the grade.


In its second year, the Global Solar Report Card is the only country by country comparison of how governments are doing to facilitate solar installations and to take advantage of the solar potential that they each have. Not only does the report highlight installed kW or MW, but it is also being used to spur nations to learn from each other and do more.


Italy, China, Greece and Japan each made improvements over last year. California (not a country but with a GDP bigger than most) made second place with a B and Italy was hot on its heels with a B-: these two solar stars experienced an almost 400% increase in solar capacity. Future reports plan to include solar installations in developing nations, funding of projects by developed nations as well as removing barriers to installations.

Yet the report also highlights that we have a long way to go, particularly with only 16 countries represented and most earning no better than a C grade. According to Edward Norton, board member of Global Green USA, "Sadly, the report card points out that most nations still have a long way to go toward harvesting the full potential of solar as a clean, renewable energy source." Russia and Poland both received an F grade for focusing on other renewables and not providing any incentives for installing solar. So just how did everyone do overall?
Nation 2009 2008
Australia C- C

Canada D D

China D D-

France C+ C+
Germany A- A-

Greece C C-

India C- C

Israel D- D-

Italy B- C+

Japan C+ C

Poland F F

Russia F F
Spain C+ C+

Switzerland D- F
The United Kingdom D D-

The United States C+ C+
California B B
The report itself was weighted 30% on actual installed power and more heavily (70%) on whether governments have a long-term plan in place and how easily they facilitate future installations thanks to incentives and programs. Even with a top score,Germany (and all of the other countries included) are still considered in their infancy in terms of solar programs, with plenty of room for all to improve. 

PV 2008

Here is an excellent report on the global status of PV, as of August 2009, from the EU Joint Research Centre, Renewable Energy Unit (part of the European Commission):

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refsys/pdf/PV-Report2009.pdf

Things are looking bright: in 2008 between 7 GW and 8 GW of solar PV (photovoltaic) cells was produced worldwide, nearly double the amount in 2007!

Since 2003, total PV production increased almost 10 fold with annual growth rates between 40% and 80%, whereas the thin film segment – starting from a very low level – grew in average by over 90%.

It seems we're finally having 'take off' and starting to move away from the fossils!