Top U.S. Utilities Grow Solar Power Despite Recession 16 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Today, the Solar Electric Power Association [SEPA] whose membership includes 110 utilities issued a new report - “2008 Top Ten Utility Solar Integration Rankings” - which identifies the utilities in the U.S. that have the most solar electricity integrated into their portfolio.
The report demonstrates that the utility segment is making a major investment to increase the amount of solar energy in power portfolios, with many utilities doubling the amount of solar power in their portfolio in just one year. The installed solar capacity of the top ten ranked utilities rose 25 percent in a tough economy, from 711 megawatts to 882 megawatts.
The Top 10 Utilities in cumulative megawatts installed represent six states stretching from California to New York:
#1 Southern California Edison (EIX) – CA (441.4MW)
#2 Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG) – CA (229.5)
#3 NV Energy (NVE) – NV (77.9)
#4 San Diego Gas & Electric (SDOGI.PK) – CA (49.3)
#5 Public Service of Colorado (Xcel Energy (XEL)) – CO (28.5)
#6 LA Department of Water & Power – CA (13.6)
#7 Public Service Electric & Gas Co. – NJ (13.2)
#8 Arizona Public Service Co. – AZ (10.6)
#9 Sacramento Municipal Utility District – CA (10.2)
#10 Long Island Power Authority – NY (7.7)
Although the sunny West Coast dominates this year’s list, other states are coming on strong including Florida, North Carolina, and Florida. Yes, the availability of sunlight is one driver in the expanded use of solar. Other drivers include the retail price of electricity, state government initiatives such as RPS, and cap-and-trade of emission credits.
There are two primary solar technologies, photovoltaic and concentrating solar power. Photovoltaic [PV] technologies utilize a photosensitive material to generate electricity direct from sunlight. PV can also be magnified using mirrors or lenses in low or high-concentrations known as concentrating photovoltaic technology or CPV. Concentrating solar power [CSP] technologies utilize mirrors or lenses to concentrate sunlight on a point or line and generate high-temperature heat, which is captured to generate electricity in a later process.
Julia Hamm, Executive Director of SEPA, sees strong growth in both PV and CSP. For example, Southern California Edison is planning a massive 1.3GW of CSP with BrightSource. Arizona Power is planning 125MW of PV. Medium- and utility-scale photovoltaic and concentrating solar thermal power projects are adding around 20 billion dollars worth of investment.
Some European nations that aggressively use wind power, such as Spain and Denmark, have demonstrated that intermittency is quite manageable when renewable energy is less than 20% of the mix. CSP can take the mix much higher by storing energy in liquids like molten salt for delivery when demand peaks.
#5 on the list, Public Service of Colorado (Xcel Energy), is already experimenting with vehicle-to-grid (V2G Report), which will allow the growing population of electric vehicles to provide power to the grid during peak hours. Utilities are experimenting with several forms of large scale grid-storage which will be promising if significant costs are achieved.
Some 30 years ago, solar was dismissed as impractical. Now that PV manufacturing cost is 100 times less than in early days, utilities are taking the lead in the growing demand for solar power.
Disclosure: No positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 16 comments:
In Los Angeles, CA - right now - buildings with large roof areas are being used to generate electric power using solar panels. The power companies involved are using these to create electric power without the need of building a new power plant to do it.
Places in Europe - Switzerland is one - have had apartment buildings that produce their own power in several different ways for at least a decade - including solar power over parking barns to re-power electric vehicles from stored power while people are home and sleeping.
Mother Earth News also had working designs for DIY Hybrid Electric Cars over 20 (twenty) years ago. I converted one of those old Mustang hatchback compact cars to one a LONG time ago and increased the mileage by putting solar panels on the roof to help re-charge the batteries while I was doing things like shopping. All I had to do was park the car in the sun! Not real hard to do even 20 (twenty) or so years ago. The technologies are MUCH better now but the ability to do these things has been around for a LONG time. It is simply that almost nobody here in the US had any interest in doing so.
The per capita consumption of vehicle miles traveled in this state is around 12,000. Some states with high fractions of urban populations have a lot less per capita consumption. Range of the vehicle is still a factor in most of the country. I would not want to experiment with forcing people to lower their driving for fear of making the foraging distance to current or future jobs substantially less. Less choice usually means a poorer quality of possibilities for both employee and employer. There are still a lot of people driving 50 to 150 miles a day to go to work.
Making cars get better gas mileage has, in the past, only increased driving. Forcing less auto use could also depopulate the areas of the country where cost of living is lower. Commuting seems to be a benefit to large urban areas in that they can get cheaper labor without enduring the full force of the infrastructure costs to support the population on a 24/7 basis.
Social engineering always makes me nervous since the counterintuitive effects seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The fraction of income spent on transportation has been below 10 percent once and above 12 percent once in the last 40 years. If disposable income continues to decline through taxation, inflation or other factors, it is highly likely that there will be a response... I just don't know what it will be and I am not sure that after discovering the down side, we will have the will or smarts to change course.
I expect solar technology to improve and may revisit the issue i n the future. I am beginning to think that the folks in Washington are deliberately blocking the development of conventional domestic energy resources to make "alternatives" more affordable. You may expect to see gas and oil climb as the rest of the world recovers.
They are protecting their base power infrastructure out of necessity.
Better to actually know your state (or live in it like I do) before you comment...
On May 31 02:11 PM crosscreek wrote:
> Once again, California leads the way. Why aren't there more in desert
> hot states like Texas? The GOP and red states need to wake up, or
> keep defining their party as the party of the past.
I imagine California will lead the way with the first state to go bankrupt. What a first! Bond holders should watch what happened at GM & Chrysler.
As far as California going bankrupt, it is no surprise since we are the biggest tax donors to the Federal government and one of the lowest in terms of recipients (we get far less back than what we give). Asking for a "bailout" would be getting some of our money back, since the GOP has given most of it to red states the past 20 years. You might have great roads and subsidies thanks to our taxes, but we are still the biggest exporting State in the union (Film/Television) and as a measure of GDP are by far the most productive. So please spare me the usual anti-California rant.
On May 31 05:32 PM YoYoMama wrote:
> You've obviously never been to Texas. Only West Texas and parts
> of the panhandle are desert. East Texas is lush pine forest. Central
> Texas is rolling green hills and lakes. South Texas is hotter than
> blazes but has a tropical climate with plenty of moisture and greenery.
>
>
> Better to actually know your state (or live in it like I do) before
> you comment...
On May 31 06:22 PM crosscreek wrote:
> There is enough desert and heat in Texas to put up solar panels.
>
On May 31 06:22 PM crosscreek wrote:
> There is enough desert and heat in Texas to put up solar panels.
>
> As far as California going bankrupt, it is no surprise since we are
> the biggest tax donors to the Federal government and one of the lowest
> in terms of recipients (we get far less back than what we give).
> Asking for a "bailout" would be getting some of our money back, since
> the GOP has given most of it to red states the past 20 years. You
> might have great roads and subsidies thanks to our taxes, but we
> are still the biggest exporting State in the union (Film/Television)
> and as a measure of GDP are by far the most productive. So please
> spare me the usual anti-California rant.
Danny,
All of your cautions about social engineering are accurate. Planners are usually blind to their own assumptions and end up creating lopsided systems that don't meet peoples needs well.
However, the oil, coal, and radionuclides are running out; you can't deny that. When they're gone they are not coming back. Ever. So we simply must do something to reduce mindless energy use.
The reason that your beloved Tennessee is an area "where the cost of living is lower" is that you are stealing from the future. You probably live in a green paradise, but you're driving dozens of miles to work a day in order to do it. People in large urban areas use significantly less energy per capita than do rural people. That's even true in sprawling Los Angeles but it's probably largely from the climate.
It's true that urban people are more dependent on the petrochemical food system than folks in rural areas MIGHT be. But if you're still shopping at the grocery store AND commuting long distances in order to live in the exurbs, you are simply stealing from the future.
My suggestion how to do it would be to tax energy produced from carbon and U-235 sources and let people make their own decisions. I'm pretty disgusted with the corporate give-away "cap-and-trade" bill working its way through Congress. The bill "assures" that recipients of the 85% of vouchers granted must "pass the savings through to their customers". Tell you what, I'll sell you a bridge I got at an amazing price a couple of days ago. I'm passing my savings on to you.
Once again the two-Senators per state arrangement of the upper house has allowed the whiny 20% of the population in the Midwest and Appalachian states to dictate a major national priority to the detriment of everyone else.
On May 31 10:03 AM Danny Newton wrote:
> Making solar cells is a very energy intensive process. That could
> be why two companies have moved to Tennessee. About 30% of the power
> here is atomic energy, about 7% is hydro. There is also evil coal
> burning away to make those solar cells.
>
> The per capita consumption of vehicle miles traveled in this state
> is around 12,000. Some states with high fractions of urban populations
> have a lot less per capita consumption. Range of the vehicle is still
> a factor in most of the country. I would not want to experiment with
> forcing people to lower their driving for fear of making the foraging
> distance to current or future jobs substantially less. Less choice
> usually means a poorer quality of possibilities for both employee
> and employer. There are still a lot of people driving 50 to 150 miles
> a day to go to work.
>
> Making cars get better gas mileage has, in the past, only increased
> driving. Forcing less auto use could also depopulate the areas of
> the country where cost of living is lower. Commuting seems to be
> a benefit to large urban areas in that they can get cheaper labor
> without enduring the full force of the infrastructure costs to support
> the population on a 24/7 basis.
>
> Social engineering always makes me nervous since the counterintuitive
> effects seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The fraction
> of income spent on transportation has been below 10 percent once
> and above 12 percent once in the last 40 years. If disposable income
> continues to decline through taxation, inflation or other factors,
> it is highly likely that there will be a response... I just don't
> know what it will be and I am not sure that after discovering the
> down side, we will have the will or smarts to change course.
Most people, some even in theTennessee legislature, do not realize that the state is more than 60% urban. There are several counties losing population since the last census. Urban areas do use energy more effectively. They use roads more effectively also. Urban areas could use electric cars now but transportation uses a great deal of energy via hydrocarbons. The current grid and generation system can not stand to have the equivelant hydrocarbon based transportation related power converted to Kw-Hr demand.
There is a big push to attract and bribe auto related industries to the state. An equivalent auto running on electricity would probably have half the parts, be simpler and easier to maintain. The number of industrial jobs in Tennessee declines at a rate of over 4% per year ove the last six years. This shrinkage is troublesome and the fixers in the legislature are not going to distinguish themselves in this problem by doing something clever. I predict resistance to electric cars based on the possibility that it will shrink the "good jobs" in the auto industry. I also see a tendency to want to wait for restructuring the private fleet until the perfect electric truck(18 Wheeler) is available rather than do incremental restructuring over time.