Europe ranks highest in PV electricity generation capacity
Share
According to a new report, more than three quarters of the world’s new photovoltaic (PV) solar systems were installed in Europe in 2009, producing a peak amount of new electricity of around 5.8GW.
By the end of 2009, Europe’s cumulative installed PV electricity generation capacity (existing and newly installed) was 16GW, which is about 70 per cent of the world’s total (22GW).
The figures were revealed as part of the findings of the ninth annual Photovoltaics Status Report published by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Most of the European Union’s (EU’s) growth in 2009 occurred in Germany, where 3.8GW of new solar power was installed, bringing the total power generated in that country to 9.8GW. In the fourth quarter alone, around 2.3GW of power was connected to the grid. In fact, Germany ranks first in the world for cumulative installed capacity, followed by Spain at 3.5GW, thanks to the renewable energy legislation in these countries.
Second in the PV growth ranking was Italy, which added 0.73GW of power, followed by Japan with 0.48GW, the US with 0.46GW, the Czech Republic with 0.41GW and Belgium with 0.3GW.
However, in the EU, only 0.4 per cent of total electricity supplied to users came from PV systems in 2009. Worldwide, the percentage was a mere 0.1 per cent.
When it comes to the production of PV cells, the report estimates that this has increased worldwide to 11.5GW in 2009 – 56 per cent up from 2008; the growth, however, was mainly in China, Taiwan and Malaysia.
The report also notes that the over-capacity for solar modules caused a dramatic price reduction of almost 50 per cent over two years, with an average selling price now less than €1.50 (£1.25) per Watt.
Readers' comments (5)
David Martin | 8 Sep 2010 2:01 pm
I've yet to see evidence that PV cells produce more energy in their limited life time than is consumed in their manufacture, delivery and disposal. I would be grateful if someone could post a link.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Sep 2010 2:42 pm
PV currently takes around 2 years to 'pay back' the energy it took to manufacture. I imagine the data is commercially sensitive which is why actual figures aren't widely available.
Not directly compatible generators but is independent data available for nuclear power stations on their build and savings on other large scale electrical generators.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Pollard | 8 Sep 2010 6:26 pm
The figures quoted for installed power are somewhat slanted, representing as they do the peak power. Average power is less than 10% of peak power, and is a lot less than that during the winter. They are a waste of money attracting as they do substantial government incentives.
We could cover the whole of the UK in PV, and it would not begin to be able to supply what we use even on a summer's day. What is the point of spending money on such a nugatory source of energy?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A. W. Black | 8 Sep 2010 8:46 pm
David,
What exactly do you mean by "PV's limited lifetime"
We don't have a good feel for what PVs lifetime is because so many of the original PVs made 40 years ago are still working.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 10 Sep 2010 2:45 am
The whole issue is a complex one especially with regard to cost and potential returns on an investment. PV systems are fine in isolation, but how many produce 240V with a current supply which could be deemed usable in the average household.
Here is the need for a differing perspective, if many items were low voltage systems and energy efficient the picture changes. If LED lighting systems were used in conjunction with PV's we have a usable source of energy as they are very low consumers for a usable output, so practical. This requires a change in thought from building designers, architects, and those in the industry to promote low voltage systems, particularly in public or commercial buildings. If LED lighting were fitted to communal areas such as stairwells, security lighting, and other none working areas they would be fine, and practical. They also require batteries to store this energy.
On the domestic front cost becomes a major issue, many thousands will need to be spent with no returns before 30 years. This is because the figures are based on the best output figures and not an average output figure. We also have to consider those companies jumping on the bandwagon and charging extortionate prices for sales and installation. Many of these are rather vague with the truth, and as with any new technology, many are their to exploit consumers to make vast profits.
As we see it clearly needs a radical rethink and some honesty.
One final thought, with PV technology development becoming so rapid, todays technology is tomorrows antique.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment