Gaia Worldwide

Amid all the skepticism, criticism, and uncertainty bubbling up in the solar industry, the numbers continue to give us reason to be optimistic.

Highlights of a report by GTM Research and SEIA released recently are cause for celebration.

Developers added 449.2 megawatts of solar-generating capacity in the quarter, up 140 percent from 187.3 megawatts in the same quarter last year. The installed capacity was more than the total U.S capacity installed in all of 2009.

Still room to run?

While the numbers are impressive and show signs that the U.S. is beginning to establish its self as a major market for solar equipment and services, almost half of the solar in Q3 came from a small number of large, Utility-scale projects. While utility scale momentum can continue in the current policy environment, there is risk that things will change in a hurry if Congress lets the 1603 Cash Grant Program expire at the end of the year.

The cash grant program is critical to project developers because it provides the bridge financing necessary to get from initial planning to completed construction, and is the key driver of growth in solar power for utilities.

Lately I’ve been encouraged by the frequency and thought going into articles and research on solar electricity, as well as the coverage by mass market news media who are often unable to take a deep dive on any issue, forget something as low profile as solar power.

It was several months ago that I read an article in Scientific American which drew parallels between solar and computing technology. I was so excited to see SA make reference to Moore’s Law, which for our purposes can basically be boiled down as saying that computer chips get cheaper and more powerful at a rapid and sustained rate, essentially doubling in power every 18 months.

While this certainly has not held true for solar, there are components of Moore’s Law which do translate to the power of Photovoltaics, and which although not as rapidly as in computing, have brought us to a period of what look like absurdly low prices for solar in comparison to just 18-24 months ago.

With negative news about high profile solar failures, and the relentless bashing of the Obama Administration (mainly by right leaning media and individuals) for supporting Solyndra, I was, and remain concerned how the average person’s opinion may be affected. Could the talk of big time failures and “tax payer dollars being wasted” make them assume that there is something wrong with the technology, or feel less sure of it’s value?

While it’s not clear how exactly all the bad news is changing perceptions, it’s safe to assume that the failure of Solyndra and others such as Evergreen Solar, right here in my back yard, makes solar can easily become more debatable, and worst of all more complex. A moment of hesitation by, for example, a residential homeowner interested in solar panels on their roof, will result in a no-sale the vast majority of the time, costing the installer up to $300 per opportunity according to Sungevity, a major player in residential solar leasing.

Alas… I can take heart in what I’m seeing now.

So, seeing the Paul Krugman’s article in the New York Times, make reference Scientific American’s assessment gave me a feeling of reassurance. Perhaps the general population is starting to see beyond the noise and distorted data presented by the media, business, and government departments who have access to the general population on a regular basis, and starting to see the facts.

I’ve been blasting people with the idea of Moore’s Law as it relates to solar pv for years, and assuring them that the economics of solar vs. conventional dirty power would come into balance much faster than the politicians and pundits were suggesting. In many states, my state of Massachusetts being one of them, we’re already there.

So what now…?