Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumReport: Solar Scores Big Gains in Electricity Generation
For the first time, solar accounted for all the new electricity generation capacity added to the U.S. grid in March.
By MEG HANDLEY
April 12, 2013
Despite the buzz surrounding natural gas and its increased role in electricity generation, solar seems to be increasingly stealing the spotlight from the newly famous fossil fuel.
Thanks to new projects across the country, solar energy accounted for all new utility electricity generation capacity added to the grid for the first time in March, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Energy Infrastructure Update. All other energy sources combined added no new generation capacity, the report noted.
Since 2008, the amount of solar energy powering U.S. homes, businesses and military bases has grown by more than 600 percent according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. In 2012 alone, the United States brought more new solar capacity online than in the three prior years combined, underscoring projections that solar will be the nation's largest new source of energy over the next four years.
Momentum behind the development of more renewable energy is mounting, too. According to a recent poll conducted by Gallup, three-quarters of Americans support increased solar energy use and 71 percent favor pursuing more wind energy.
"These new numbers from FERC support our forecast that solar will continue a pattern of growth in 2013...
more at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/12/report-solar-scores-big-gains-in-electricity-generation
silverweb
(16,402 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Not only that, but I know someone who just bought a Tesla, and he thinks he is not polluting the world when he drives. I can't wait for renewable to be 100% of our generation.
adieu
(1,009 posts)than an internal combustion engine. ICEs get about 17% efficiency. Even if all the energy in the Tesla's batteries were charged from a coal or oil fired power plant, the efficiency of such a plant, including the loss over the cables, is around 28%.
Also, Tesla's don't need oil changes in the same way ICEs need oil changes, so there's less pollution from that.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It has been a while since I read the study, but I think that's close.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I knew my comment was weak. I'm also an engineer. The weakest part of the argument is that with time we will be phasing out ICE's.
Oil changes are not a source of pollution above the background noise. I don't know where you pulled that one from.
The neat thing about electric cars right now is that they cost about $1 to drive 100 miles, according to my calculations, and comparing it to my friend's experience. Not too shabby.
adieu
(1,009 posts)somewhat. It's not so much the oil change per se, although there are some yokels who take the old oil and just drain it away in their toilet or wherever. Completely illegal and polluting.
Even if ICE cars don't use nuclear and coal, that's not a very good way to computing the net effect of energy usage.
Nuclear and coal generate electricity, combined with hydro, wind, solar, oil, natural gas and whatever other methods. We're not building any new nuclear as far as I know. Nor are we building any new coal plants. We are building many new solar and wind plants. Since both nuclear and coal plants work optimally when fully utilized, they're already on full use regardless of whether we use the electricity for charging our cars or charging our laptops.
Thus, increasing use of electric vehicles will mainly be met by increasing our solar/wind power supplies (yay!) instead of new nuclear or coal plants. At the same time, we're building more solar/wind plants so that when it is time to decommission a nuclear or coal plant, their absence in the grid will be subsumed by existing new technologies, including more solar and wind plants.
In other words, it's not as though there is a nuclear or coal plant dedicated to charging just electric vehicles. It isn't such the case.