Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Looks like they've continued unabated through the recent pandemic, although just over half of the 1.96 GW was completed in January. In total there is now an impressive 41GW of Solar panels installed nation wide in the US. Texas looks set to overcome California as the leader in this particular sphere in the next five years.

The US installed more solar in Q1 2020 than ever before

The United States installed more solar in Q1 2020 than in any previous first quarter ever, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence and SEIA. Almost 2 GW of utility-scale solar, 1.96 GW in total, were installed in the first quarter of 2020, more than 65% higher than the total installed in the first quarter of last year.

The fun doesn’t stop with utility-scale solar, however. According to SEIA, once residential installations are factored in, the total capacity installed in Q1 jumps to 3.6 GW, which makes the start of 2020 the largest Q1 on record by more than 1 GW. The tidal wave of solar doesn’t seem to be slowing down yet, as SEIA also shares that 5.4 GW of new utility PV projects were announced in Q1 2020, though, as they year progresses, distributed solar will face virus-related tension and installation slowdowns.

The majority of these installations came on-line in January, which was home to a commanding 56.7% of the total capacity added during the quarter, according to S&P. However, even more impressive than that one month of dominance, the emperor has been overthrown, as Florida installed more solar in Q1 (596 MW) than California did (359 MW). The largest single project to go on line came from where else but Texas, with the Childress Solar Park, formerly known as the Misae Project, clocking in at 240 MW. This project is also one of shared ownership, with IKEA and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners K/S holding 51% and 49% shares respectively.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/09/the-us-installed-more-solar-in-q1-2020-than-ever-before/?utm_source=pv+magazine+USA&utm_campaign=43af523dc4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_80e0d17bb8-43af523dc4-159341337

Coastalwatch

........While at the other end of the scale in the outback of Aus stand-alone power systems, including Solar and Storage, are proving they're more reliable than the existing grid and saving money for ordinary tax payers into the bargain!

Western Power delivers first community SPS

The Nowanup property is a keystone in south-west Western Australia’s biodiversity regeneration, and now, with the installation of a stand-alone power system (SPS) from Western Power, the spur of the line property is no longer subject to routine outages from storm and bushfire interruptions. With self-sufficiency, Curtin University can now expand its Bush Campus into the property to better facilitate Noongar education.

Greening Australia’s 740-hectare Nowanup property is located near Boxwood Hill, right at the end of a spur line, meaning that it invariably suffers innumerable power outages when a storm or bushfire or any other such exertion interrupts the powerline anywhere on its run.

Of course, it needs be said that the saving made on not needing to constantly maintain and replace poles and wires is a saving for all Western Australians. Stand-alone systems are not stand-apart systems, they are a unifying solution.

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/07/10/western-power-delivers-first-community-sps/?utm_source=pv+magazine+USA&utm_campaign=43af523dc4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_80e0d17bb8-43af523dc4-159341337

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

Quite a list and rallying call for those wishing to see action taken against the effects of AGW in the US.

Given the power of the Oil giants I suspect Biden would need a sizeable majority in both houses before any chance of success could materialise. Can't imagine many rednecks voting for it. But what about the greater majority of US citizens!

The great news though is that PV and wind is performing incredibly well in the whole of the US, but especially strong in the lower 'redneck' states. Texas is absolutely booming. So, whilst politics and beliefs may still be slightly against RE, economics is firmly on side, and Muricans (especially Republicans) do like a nice bit of economics.
In the coming election, I wonder if we'll see as many 'Trump Digs Coal' banners as 2016?

DiggerUK

"So, whilst politics and beliefs may still be slightly against RE, economics is firmly on side"

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

ABrass

DiggerUK said:

"So, whilst politics and beliefs may still be slightly against RE, economics is firmly on side"

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

I think you want the alternative Green energy thread. Or another one to discuss if RE can survive without subsidies.

Commentary around the news is good, makes the thread more interesting, but that sort of discussion is better elsewhere.

DiggerUK

My comment is entirely appropriate for this thread. I was responding to a point made by the thread originator in their last post anyway. 
In case you hadn't noticed Michael Schellenberger made exactly the same point as myself within the last two weeks..._

Coastalwatch

DiggerUK said:

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Those are both misleading statements. While as fledgling industries solar and wind both required subsidies that will no longer be the case as they will be subsidy free going forward. Unlike Nuclear of course which is an outdated, dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. The world is quite capable and better off moving forward without it as various forms of energy are now available and more will be developed in the coming years.

Please take care not to make statements which are clearly untrue in future.

ABrass

Coastalwatch said:

DiggerUK said:

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Those are both misleading statements. While as fledgling industries solar and wind both required subsidies that will no longer be the case as they will be subsidy free going forward. Unlike Nuclear of course which is an outdated, dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. The world is quite capable and better off moving forward without it as various forms of energy are now available and more will be developed in the coming years.

Please take care not to make statements which are clearly untrue in future.

Fun idea, you can copy responses into other threads. As Digger has suggested his Schellenberg thread is much more appropriate.

Exiled_Tyke

Coastalwatch said:

DiggerUK said:

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Those are both misleading statements. While as fledgling industries solar and wind both required subsidies that will no longer be the case as they will be subsidy free going forward. Unlike Nuclear of course which is an outdated, dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. The world is quite capable and better off moving forward without it as various forms of energy are now available and more will be developed in the coming years.

Please take care not to make statements which are clearly untrue in future.

Thanks Coastalwatch. Can we shut this one down now please?  Debates on nuclear are not relevant to this thread. We've been through them many times before and those of us who have been around long enough are sick for them.  They tend to go round and round, escalate into nastiness and then proponents get banned.  If that's the discussion you want DiggerUK please go to where it's wanted and save yourself the hassle of losing your account. 

DiggerUK

Exiled_Tyke said:

Coastalwatch said:

DiggerUK said:

The economics of renewables mean they cannot survive without subsidies. Neither can nuclear.
The advantage with nuclear is it's reliability, a modern world cannot go forward and develop if the power is not constantly available..._

Those are both misleading statements. While as fledgling industries solar and wind both required subsidies that will no longer be the case as they will be subsidy free going forward. Unlike Nuclear of course which is an outdated, dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. The world is quite capable and better off moving forward without it as various forms of energy are now available and more will be developed in the coming years.

Please take care not to make statements which are clearly untrue in future.

.........Debates on nuclear are not relevant to this thread. We've been through them many times before and those of us who have been around long enough are sick for them.  They tend to go round and round, escalate into nastiness and then proponents get banned.  If that's the discussion you want DiggerUK please go to where it's wanted and save yourself the hassle of losing your account. 

The issue of nuclear as a green carbon free energy supply is widely accepted, it also receives adverse criticisms. It has been  in the news in the last two weeks. Michael Schellenberger is not the only well known environmental activist on that very subject.

In the last two weeks Zion Lights made her views known on the subject...."I have a long history of campaigning on environmental issues, most recently as a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion UK and the founder of its climate reporting newspaper The Hourglass. Now, I have quit the organisation to take up a position as a campaigner for nuclear power."

How we meet our future energy needs is disputed, contrary opinions are natural and meet up with each other in such public debate as here. I have only raised news from the last two weeks and passed comment on a post from the poster who started the thread.
So why the threat to cancel me for reporting news on "....energy issues in the news..." Is that not what this thread is about..._