Unsubsidized ‘Grid Parity Has Been Reached In India’, Italy–With More Countries Coming in 2014
By Jeff Spross on Mar 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Deutsche Bank just released new analyses concluding that global solar market will become sustainable on its own terms by the end of 2014, no longer needing subsidies to continue performing.
The German-based bank said that rooftop solar is looking especially robust, and sees strong demand in solar markets in India, China, Britain, Germany, India, and the United States. As a result, Deutsche Bank actually increased its forecast for solar demand in 2013 to 30 gigawatts — a 20 percent increase over 2012.
Here’s Renew Economy with a summary of Deutsche Banks’s logic:
The key for Deutsche is the emergence of unsubsidised markets in many key countries. It points, for instance, to India, where despite delays in the national solar program, huge demand for state based schemes has produced very competitive tenders, in the [12 cents per kilowatt hour] range. Given the country’s high solar radiation profile and high electricity prices paid by industrial customers, it says several conglomerates are considering large scale implementation of solar for self consumption.
“Grid parity has been reached in India even despite the high cost of capital of around 10-12 percent,” Deutsche Bank notes, and also despite a slight rise in module prices of [3 to 5 cents per kilowatt] in recent months (good for manufacturers).
Italy is another country that appears to be at grid parity, where several developers are under advanced discussions to develop unsubsidized projects in Southern Italy. Deutsche Bank says that for small commercial enterprises that can achieve 50 percent or more self consumption, solar is competitive with grid electricity in most parts of Italy, and commercial businesses in Germany that have the load profile to achieve up to 90 percent self consumption are also finding solar as an attractive source of power generation.
Deutsche bank says demand expected in subsidised markets such as Japan and the UK, including Northern Ireland, is expected to be strong, the US is likely to introduce favourable legislation, including giving solar installations the same status as real estate investment trusts, strong pipelines in Africa and the Middle east, and unexpectedly strong demand in countries such as Mexico and Caribbean nations means that its forecasts for the year are likely to rise.
As Renew Economy ...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/03/1664481/solar-report-stunner-unsubsidized-grid-parity-has-been-reached-in-india-italy-with-more-countries-coming-in-2014/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Was it two years ago or three that you told me that China alone was producing 35GW of solar PV per year?
But now I read that global demand in 2013 is predicted to grow 20% to 30 GW (and you even put it in bold)...
Physics majors have to take lots of math... and I had pretty solid grades... but I confess that I'm struggling with an apparent contradiction. 
So do we both know the answer to "It will either be true or it will not be true." yet? Because I knew it back then. But don't worry... you've still got six or seven years to the prediction of 1,000 GW/year.
Let's see... we only need to expand that 20% annual growth rate fivefold to hit that target? 
It was a hint because on at least one of those threads I asked for links to back up your claims (since I knew where you got them and how you were misreading them)... and you told me that you had them but I would just have to look it up myself.
Nice to know that you now recognize your behavior as evidence of dishonesty. 
I'm just demonstrating that the distortion and false claims are all on your side of the conversation. I suspect that you remember the conversation just fine... and that you screwed up... but need to bluster to cover it.
Admitting errors doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your interlocutor is honorable... certainly not by your standards.
It's entirely based on your own sense of honor.
So are you capable of admitting errors even to people you would rather not humble yourself in front of... or not? I just did.
You could still pretend that you were right about everything else if that helps you sleep better.
Not at all. Generally speaking you're pretty solid (we have wild eyed fools on both sides - you're not one of them). But you have some big gaps in your perception of reality that cause you to misread things (both in the news and in others' posts)... and you're often "round the bend" when it comes to nuclear power.
Now, perhaps you can explain precisely how I've misread or misunderstood the content of the article?
As I said in the title... there are two possibilities (both documented in the prior reply). Your two errors are:
A - Misreading a cumulative installed capacity to instead be an annual production capacity (as demonstrated by the 1,000 GW error)
B - Misreading a production capacity as the amount of something that will actually be produced - or worse, the production capacity of one subset of a process as the amount of a thing that will be produced/installed (as demonstrated with that nacelle factory around the same time as these links - and on one of these threads where you outright questioned why anyone would build capacity unless they expected to use it).
The fact that this example includes "50 GW" in both cases leaves open both possibilities and I confess that I jumped to a conclusion re: which one you were making. If you're telling me "I didn't make mistake A here... I made mistake B!" - that's fine. I can own misreading that.