India installed over 1GW of grid solar in 2013

[bananas]

Source: PV Tech

India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has released figures revealing more than 1GW of grid-connected solar was installed last year.

As of 31 December 2012, a total of 1.176GW had been installed and grid connected in India. Throughout the 2013 calendar year, a further 1.004GW was added, taking the cumulative total to 2.180GW.

<snip>

As of 31 December 2012, 106MW of off grid solar had been installed cumulatively, as of 31 December 2013; the cumulative total for installed off grid solar was 144MW.

<snip>

Despite industry concerns, and trade disputes, India is still pushing forward with ambitious solar targets. In September the ministry set the target of 10GW of solar to be installed by 2017.

Read more: http://www.pv-tech.org/news/more_than_1gw_new_solar_installed_by_india_in_2013

---

Via http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/20/india-solar-energy-gigawatt-grid/

[Overseas]

1. K&R. Glad to hear it.

[Spirochete]

2. That's almost enough

to kick in the flux capacitor...

[eggplant]

5. Damn it, I was going to post this!

[Spirochete]

6. Great minds think alike

and so do ours, apparently

[sakabatou]

23. I'm still cringe when he says "Jiggawatt."

[The Stranger]

3. Why can't the West do this?

[kristopher]

10. How much solar do you think the US installed last year?

Google is your friend.

[The Stranger]

11. Well, this is some unusually good news.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/US-Likely-to-Surpass-Germany-in-Solar-in-2013-930-MW-Installed-in-Q3

[kristopher]

12. Not to many US utilities and coal/nuclear plant owners

Their business model depends on cranking up their plants during midday peaks when electricity is most expensive on the wholesale market. What determines the order of the generating facilities' bids are their costs of operations including fuel. Since solar and wind have no fuel costs, and since solar is a dependable source for that peak period, its expansion steals the high value market from the coal/nuclear plants - and it is pushing them into red quickly. They've identified about 330 coal plants that are on the verge of shutting down and several nuclear plants are in the same fix.

Watch for headlines about utilities trying to rewrite the rules for "net metering", the program that offsets the electricity costs from utilities for homeowners with solar. The conservatives (ALEC) are trying to ruin the economics of the US solar industry.

How ALEC plans to reshape U.S. energy policy in 2014
By Ethan Howland
JANUARY 10, 2014

Who is ALEC?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded conservative group that drafts model bills and policies for its legislative members to take back to their home states.

ALEC boasts nearly 2,000 state lawmakers as members, according to the group. Typically, ALEC lawmaker members introduce the group's model legislation and resolutions in their home legislatures. Identical ALEC bills sometimes pop up in different states around the country.

ALEC has turned its attention to electric utility issues in recent years. “The ever-increasing governmental control over energy supply, distribution, and use is threatening not only the nation’s prosperity but also individual liberty,” according to ALEC's 2014 Natural Resource Reserve, which lays out the group's model policies on energy, the environment and agriculture for this year....

More at: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/



ALEC documents linked in article:
Model policies on energy, environment, and agriculture
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_Natural-Resource-Reserve.pdf

2014 Proposed Model Bills
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/diveimages/ALEC_EEA_2013_SNPS_35_Day.pdf

[loudsue]

4. In rural NC, we are having huge acreage....whole farms....are being installed with solar panels.

It's pretty wild! I don't know what's going to come of it all. I'm not sure who is paying for it, but I'm going to find out this week.

[Progressive dog]

7. The US has 10Gw now and growing

From Wikipedia

In mid-2013, the U.S. passed 10 GW of installed photovoltaic capacity[1] with an additional 0.5 GW of concentrated solar power.

As of June 24, 2013, a total of 3,494 MW of utility scale photovoltaic power plants are under construction in the United States.[21]

[NickB79]

8. And in the meantime, coal continues to boom

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/bank-of-america-goldman-sachs-india-coal

What's undisputed is that Coal India is one of the world's largest coal producers, accounting for about 80% of India's production. What's more, India plans to build 455 new coal-fired plants with an installed capacity of 519.396 gigawatts, according to a 2012 report by the World Resources Institute. That's more than any country except China, and roughly equivalent to the output of half of the coal plants now operating in the US. No bank or investor that takes the climate threat seriously should seek to profit from such a vast expansion of coal production.

1 GW of solar in one year is a huge amount for the renewables sector, but still sorely lacking in comparison to the established fossil fuel sector. I still fear we aren't taking climate change and Peak Fossil Fuel seriously, because we need to be installing 10-20X this amount, across the entire planet, to prevent catastrophic climate change in the next few decades.

[kristopher]

9. I would fail to see your point - if I didn't know you are a nuclear booster

Apparently your point is that even though they've started turning to solar it means nothing.
Never mind that solar is a technology which can scale up remarkably fast.

I guess message you hope to leave is that they need more nuclear,, in spite of the fact that they've been throwing money down that sinkhole for 30 years without making a dent in their drive for coal.

I think they need more distributed solar. Also, that any spending on nuclear is money that would have gone much further if spent to support the establishment of a domestic solar industry.

I know that DUEE nuclear supporters love to stand on the logical construct that "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

However pointing to that is little more than a distraction from the real point in the data about the type of support that actually gets nuclear plants built. The fact is that the 'by far largest bloc' of conservative support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

The other common belief of this 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power
that is conservative,
that supports fossil fuels, and
that denies climate change, is that,
they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy** with all kinds of specious facts and defective reasoning.

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.


** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504

[NickB79]

13. You fail to see my point? Take off your blinders then, kris

I still fear we aren't taking climate change and Peak Fossil Fuel seriously, because we need to be installing 10-20X this amount, across the entire planet, to prevent catastrophic climate change in the next few decades.

Here, I'll even bold it for you:

we need to be installing 10-20X this amount, across the entire planet, to prevent catastrophic climate change in the next few decades.

Oh wait, that CLEARLY makes me a nuclear booster, right kris? Since the Fukushima accident, my outlook towards nuclear has soured considerably (which you are well aware of, because I've told you many times), but since you have no argument of substance, you resort to smear and insult.

But don't worry; they don't impact me in the slightest

[kristopher]

14. It is a part of a longstanding pattern of disingenuous claims.

The idea you are seeding is the fundamental claim of the nuclear industry - renewables can't do the job.

Here's an earlier, similar exchange about the position Japan is in.

hunter
4. Well, let's see. They can burn coal or LNG or they can sit around cold, hungry and unemployed in dark waiting for some kind of solar miracle.

Germany shut their nuclear plants and replaced them with coal and natural gas. Japan could do that too, but coal sucks as bad or worse than nuclear power. A coal mine and power plant belch out many tons of greenhouse gases, carcinogens, toxins, and even radioactivity every day in their normal operation. Germany's solar and wind schemes were essentially greenwash.

Before anyone accuses me of being pro-nuclear again (and again, and again...) remember I advocate something much more radical -- the end of "consumer society" and "economic productivity" as we now know it. Throw away the cars, the big box stores, the highways; increase the density of cities and pull out of suburbs and other low density populated areas that are not suitable for high intensity organic agriculture; create a society where walking becomes the primary mode of transportation, etc., etc.

If that's not the sort of society you want, living and working on farms that look rather Amish, or in a dense urban environment, then you've got to pick your poison: Nuclear, fossil fuels, or expensive and environmentally destructive "alternative energy" schemes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014665714#post4

kristopher
5.That's rather remarkable logic you've chosen to use

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to Germany shutting down nuclear plants. And coincidently, the false narrative you weave is the same one promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to the relative risk of radiation from coal power and nuclear power. Coincidently, this false narrative is also the same one promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to the options available to the Japanese in their energy choices. Coincidently, the false narrative regarding the inability of renewable energy sources to meet modern Japan's needs is, you guessed it, also the same one promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to the options available to the everyone in their energy choices. Coincidently, the false narrative regarding the inability of renewable energy sources to meet modern society's needs is, you guessed it, also the same one promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to the relative economic and environmental cost of "alternative energy" sources. Coincidently, this false narrative is yet again exactly the same one that avid promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you make a false presentation of facts relating to the relative economic and environmental cost of "alternative energy" sources. Coincidently, this false assertion is yet again exactly the same one that avid promoters of nuclear use.

You say you don't advocate for nuclear, yet you refer to "alternative energy" sources and the plans for their use as "schemes", a word connoting unethical behavior. Coincidently, this type of verbiage regarding efforts to move to renewables is an absolute favorite among avid promoters of nuclear.

All of that taken together has the appearance of not being coincidental at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014665714#post5

[NickB79]

16. I'm not a part of that discussion you linked to

Hunter and I are two separate DU members.

Care to try again?

[kristopher]

18. You both come at renewables with the same intent.

And you both deny you are motivated by your support for nuclear. And that goes straight back to the point in post9
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014702839#post9

[NickB79]

21. I can't speak of hunter's intent or motives

Seeing as I'm a separate individual as him.

My intent is, and has been for some time, very clear: raise awareness of the fact we aren't doing nearly enough to avert catastrophic climate change, and at the very least get people to think about preparing for a future that won't be the shiny, perfect Star Trek one we were promised.

Your intent, from what I've gathered over the years on DU, appears pretty clear: to promote business as usual (global capitalism) but simply subbing in solar panels for coal, wind turbines for nukes, etc. Never mind that this is the underlying reason we are in the environmental mess we're currently in, we want our shiny new toys, damn it!

After all, if you didn't promote this worldview, it would damage your consulting business.

[kristopher]

24. Replacing our carbon-centric system with a carbon free system is the antithesis of business as usual

Regularly trying to undermine renewables and promoting the centralized carbon based system we now use as you do - now THAT is promoting business as usual.

Your attempt to repaint your position as one based on objecting to "shiny new toys" is absolutely idiotic when the fact that one of the major failings of the centralized system you promote is that its economics DRIVE CONSUMPTION.

Any way you paint it, you are arguing the same position that Roger Ailes is on record as embracing.

[NickB79]

15. So, nothing of substance to address the link I posted?

Like I posted:

What's undisputed is that Coal India is one of the world's largest coal producers, accounting for about 80% of India's production. What's more, India plans to build 455 new coal-fired plants with an installed capacity of 519.396 gigawatts, according to a 2012 report by the World Resources Institute. That's more than any country except China, and roughly equivalent to the output of half of the coal plants now operating in the US. No bank or investor that takes the climate threat seriously should seek to profit from such a vast expansion of coal production.

I note you said absolutely nothing about that trend, but rather resorted to your default smear-and-bluster attacks we've all come to know and love from you over on the EE forum that segway from the topic at hand.

[kristopher]

19. And what does that have to do with the progress India has made?

There is no point at all to the post except to seed the same message that Ailes promotes on Fox. You aren't engaging in constructive dialogue, you are engaging in destructuve dialogue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014702839#post9

[NickB79]

22. India IS making progress, but not nearly enough, fast enough

If I'm in a car going 100 mph towards a cliff and tap my breaks to slow down to 95 mph, that's progress towards saving myself.

If I only have 50 ft left to go from 95 mph to a dead stop before going over the cliff, that's a big problem.

If your dialogue consists of nothing but back-slapping about what a great job you're doing, sometimes it's valuable for someone to come along and say "hey, let's not get complacent guys! Look at what XYZ is doing; we're still a LOOONG way from reaching our goals."

Pointing out that India is thinking about building massive amounts of new coal should make us redouble our efforts to ensure that doesn't happen, or at least stop as much of it as possible. But to you, this is destructive dialogue that MUST NOT BE SPOKEN.

But, if it's not spoken, how will people know about it to fight against it?

[kristopher]

25. If your actions were a "sometimes" thing that might hold water...

But it isn't.
I invite anyone to start scrolling back through the posts on DUEE and read your contributions - you either promote nuclear or try to piss on renewables.

Good dod, dude, don't you understand you are on record as doing this for YEARS?

YOU ARE AS ANTIRENEWABLE AS THEY COME.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Cities regularly experiencing power cuts

When your cities regularly experience power cuts. YOur people will be more receptive to alternatives that negate some of the more regular inconveniences. Just as it's more easy to put Solar power in places that have no electric infrastructure. Deficient infrastructures accelerate demand for alternatives.

[kristopher]

20. +1

[JI7]

26. there was an article about a lot of green tech being used in the slums