Progress

[begreen]

There is a quantum difference between an individual industry and the energy that fuels our economy and societies. Energy is already subsidized, oil, coal and gas get lots of bennies. It's just to the wrong partners at this juncture IMO. We are potentially coming up on massive societal changes. If so, we all will be making large personal sacrifices. Much larger than most people perceive at this juncture. Reducing our global carbon footprint is a matter of long term survival, not convenience. Woodgeeks point about youth changing the vote will hopefully happen. It's their future that is screwed by complacency.

Now back to the topic, progress.

 

[woodgeek]

as I said I enjoyed the read, points well made and sensible. as I've also said in other threads, i'm not a big subsidy fan. if the shoe industry was propped up like solar and wind I'd still have customers. i have a great dislike for the cape wind subsidy which amounts to $.1825 kw to the rate payer. that is before distribution charges. they also can raise this after one to two years. how'd you like that with your choice in home heat and cooling. let them survive on what the competition dictates and live on the tax breaks I get in my business. that is where politics arrive. your going to pay for it because(fill in the blank)

I suspect we might agree on several things.....I vacation on the Cape every summer, and have been following the Cape Wind project for years. Frankly, for the last couple years I have been horrified, and convinced that the whole thing is a swindle/boondoggle that will set back renewable energy in MA and off-shore power in the US for a generation or so!

I read an article in the Cape Cod Times in July that so enraged me that I was ranting about it for days.....it was clearly a press release from the Cape Wind Foundation, regurgitated by a lazy journalist....

It started out talking about how the people of Mass were long pioneers in the field of wind power, leading the rest of the beknighted citizens of the US into a RE future, and that they in their infinite wisdom have decided that they must have the Cape Wind Project, talked about how the (well above market) costs per kWh are really a bargain (by some twisted logic), that it will herald in a slew of similar projects up and down the East Coast, etc. It then went on to talk about the MA RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard, that mandates that some % MA electricity must be RE by some date) and said that it was a **problem**, because you see, it was written with an incorrect definition of 'Renewable Electricity' that included the possibility of cheap hydro power imported from Quebec. Lawyers from Cape Wind were now working with state legislators to get a revised RPS passed that would exclude such (cheap!) RE from the standard, and instead have it be worded so that it would mandate buying Cape Wind power instead.

**Flabbergasted**

If the above is your idea of wind power, I can see where you get your negative impression! I looked up (onshore) wind power stats....and PA has ~1GW of wind installed, pretty typical for a state its size, which gets 2.2 cents/kWh in federal subsidy for 10 years, and no other subsidies. On average, these turbines generate as much energy as a 350 MW power station running 24/7, and dump their power into the local grid to be sold at market rates. I can buy it about a penny cheaper than my local conventional power. If the subsidy went away, they would still operate and make money for their owners, and reduce the CO2 and other pollutants in my state's air, while creating a few jobs here.

I looked up MA, and found they they essentially have no wind power to speak of, pretty much at the bottom of the list, despite having a pretty kickin wind resource, plenty of open land out west, and being right nextdoor to CT with the most expensive power in the US. Basically nada. And then when I drive along I-95, there are a bunch of these little 'toy' turbines all along the highway, maybe 100' tall, versus the real ones that are like 300' tall and generate ~10x the power more cheaply (that can be found in other states). Why are the toy turbines there in a developed area? IMO, it greenwashing....how many folks in MA think their state is big into windpower b/c of driving past those doohickies every day?

Oy.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

I suspect we might agree on several things.....I vacation on the Cape every summer, and have been following the Cape Wind project for years. Frankly, for the last couple years I have been horrified, and convinced that the whole thing is a swindle/boondoggle that will set back renewable energy in MA and off-shore power in the US for a generation or so!

I read an article in the Cape Cod Times in July that so enraged me that I was ranting about it for days.....it was clearly a press release from the Cape Wind Foundation, regurgitated by a lazy journalist....

It started out talking about the people of Mass were long pioneers in the field of wind power, leading the rest of the beknighted citizens of the US into a RE future, and that they in their infinite wisdom have decided that they must have the Cape Wind Project, talked about how the (well above market) costs per kWh are really a bargain (by some twisted logic), that it will herald in a slew of similar projects up and down the East Coast, etc. It then went on to talk about the MA RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard, that mandates that some % MA electricity must be RE by some date) and said that it was a **problem**, because you see, it was written with an incorrect definition of 'Renewable Electricity' that included cheap hydro power imported from Quebec. Lawyers from Cape Wind were now working with state legislators to get a revised RPS passed that would exclude such (cheap!) RE from the standard, and instead have it be worded so that it would mandate buying Cape Wind power instead.

**Flabbergasted**

If the above is your idea of wind power, I can see where you get your negative impression! I looked up (onshore) wind power stats....and PA has ~1GW of wind installed, pretty typical for a state its size, which gets 2.2 cents/kWh in federal subsidy for 10 years. On average, these turbines generate as much energy as a 350 MW power station running 24/7, and dump their power into the local grid. I can buy it about a penny cheaper than my local conventional power. If the subsidy went away, they would still operate and make money for their owners, and reduce the CO2 and other pollutants in my state's air, while creating a few jobs here.

I looked up MA, and found they they essentially have no wind power to speak of, pretty much at the bottom of the list, despite having a pretty kickin wind resource, plenty of open land out west, and being right nextdoor to CT with the most expensive power in the US. Basically nada. And then when I drive along I-95, there are a bunch of these little 'toy' turbines all along the highway, maybe 100' tall, versus the real ones that are like 300' tall and generate ~10x the power more cheaply (that can be found in other states). Why are the toy turbines there in a developed area? IMO, it greenwashing....how many folks in MA think their state is big into windpower b/c of driving past those doohickies every day?

Oy.

ex-wife's brother in law has a 1.5 on his industrial park in plymouth. perfect, right. not so fast. questions whether he'll put up anymore, a royal pain to permit ect. he has the perfect place an industrial park.no complaints from one, has room for 3-4
I think your right about greening, it looks good.
cape wind rots my garters and not because I can see it from the rocker in the avatar, because I can't .
as I said you'd not be buying wind in Mass.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

this is where I make my home, don't read it all you'll get sick https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/05/29/hanover-turbine-still-not-turning/ that is just water. no sewer in hanover.

 

[woodgeek]

I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton. I guess there's an Ikea near there now?

 

[Doug MacIVER]

I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton. I guess there's an Ikea near there now?

raised in Brockton, lived on the south side. my factory is in the village and my nephew lives in the old cape road neighborhood across from Thorney Lea. IKEA on the AVON/STOUGHTON line

I grew up a little west of there, west side of Brockton. I guess there's an Ikea near there now?[/

 

[begreen]

Back to progress....

Anyone know more about the nanoflow battery? They certainly packaged it in a nice demo vehicle. The battery tech is scalable and looks good for home storage.

from the press kit:
"The current energy density of 600 Wh/l is already an impressive five to six times greater than lithium-ion batteries. In addition, flow cells can go through 10,000 charging cycles with no noticeable memory effect and suffer almost no self-discharging.

Another advantage comes through the simple scalability of the nanoFLOWCELL® storage tanks. The first QUANT e-Sportlimousine prototype carries two 200-litre tanks on board. Its energy load is therefore 200 times 600 Wh/l: 120 kWh in total. The QUANT e-Sportlimousine uses its energy reserves frugally, consuming about 20 kWh/100 km. Just like conventional cars, an electric car’s range depends on its total storage capacity and its consumption. In the case of the QUANT e-Sportlimousine, the average is around 600 kilometres."

http://www.gizmag.com/900-hp-supercar-flow-battery/31091/
(broken link removed to http://www.nanoflowcell.com/en#home)

 

[woodgeek]

Oftentimes trying to predict the future is bewildering and hopeless, and sometimes just a little later, it all becomes clear.

The economic benefits of being the first technology in a sector often trump other factors when determining what technology goes mainstream...VHS versus BetaMax. There are many reasons why this is so, but basically with tech there are 'winners' that get developed enough to get cheap and which fill a niche to get adopted.

In the renewable energy sector, big hydro got there first, the technical kinks got worked out over a couple decades, it got 'cheap' and then it got 'built out' (to between 50-100% of the US available resource) before I was born. I have read that govt assistance was provided. It meets ~6% of US electrical needs, but it is hard to see it ever going much bigger than 10%, even if we developed every site (and accepted the bad impacts of that). But still, its a winner.

'Industrial wind' (onshore) emerged from the 70s energy crisis, got its kinks worked out over a decade or so, got cheap, and it is now currently being built out. It now provides ~4% of US electricity, and is still growing in double digit percentages per year. The best sites (high resource, undeveloped land, near good markets) are running out, but there is still room to grow and make money. As for the resource, many regions can easily hit 100% wind power (peak output matches demand), and some might be able to hit 100% wind electricity energy (with cheap storage that doesn't exist currently). Still, many regions are too developed, or have too poor of a wind resource to meet those goals. Despite a few badly managed ventures, its clearly a winner.

I've already been a broken record on PV. In 2014 it is clear that it is a winner. What is different is the size of the resource (which can easily go to >100% peak power or total electrical energy (with storage) in every region of the US), and the rate of growth, 35-40% per year, compounded, which is because of the scalability of the tech and its relatively easy permitting and installation (compared to other power tech like nukes, FF plants or wind). So, it will get BIG, and it will do it FASTER than most people would ever have expected.

Like smart phone adoption BIG and FAST.

PV is now where smartphones were in 2005. Like smart phones, new tech will crowd other tech out (think dumb phones and PalmPilots), will boost related tech (think iPhone case, charger and speaker manufacturers and game app developers) and lead to unexpected new sectors (think tablets, FaceBook?). Some industries will need to retool their infrastructure and business models....e.g. we still have mostly the same cell phone companies as 2005, but they had to build out data networks, not just voice, and figure out how to charge for it.

Here's my off the cuff take for other tech.

Big Hydro: Plays well with PV, cheap and dispatchable....will be aok.
Big (onshore) Wind: Plays well with PV. Different output pattern (daily and seasonal schedule, regional) and cheap....will be aok.

All other renewable electricity tech currently being fielded at a medium scale: existing sites will continue to operate, BUT growth will go to zero.
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP, e.g. Ivanpeh): Many recent projects cancelled, most of those switched the site to industrial PV. Flatline.
Offshore Wind (e.g Cape Wind): None is US, costs of EU offshore systems have not fallen as hoped. Flatline in EU, dead in US.
Geothermal Electricity: Currently Small, limited geography and not 'sustainable' for more than a few decades. Flatline.

Other sustainable electricity under investiagation: whether or not they could be done cheaply after R&D, no one will be motivated to pay for the R&D after the PV revolution. DEAD as DOORNAILS.
List includes: Tidal, Fusion, Thorium Nukes, probably Gen III and Gen IV PV tech, OTEC, small wind, small hydro.

Grid Storage: Will be the next iPad, something 'unthinkable', until something else came first....excess really cheap daytime electrons.
Whatever storage tech emerges as the winner (I still like Li-Ion as the VHS solution of grid storage, but what do I know?) will lead to many other changes....

If/when cheap grid storage is realized, 'the iPad', then NG electricity becomes the PC, nukes become legacy Mainframes (none built in decades), and Coal is already long dead.

Interesting but impossible to predict....cheap grid storage and built up grids, paid for by PV, might expand opportunities to develop more onshore wind in the future, removing grid saturation limits, and allowing it to compete in some regions and seasons as Robin to PV's Batman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So,
Coal and Nukes are already dead.
All Renewable Energy other than onshore wind, big hydro and Si PV will soon be dead.
Grid Storage is the next iPad
Natural Gas electricity will be here until after grid storage....like the PC, it could be around a long time, but not necessarily a profit center or the center of things.
Most existing (major) Utilities will continue to exist...but your bill will be more complicated.

 

[begreen]

We'll see if the nanoflowcell is part of the solution. Does this just refer to the US? China has announced that Bejing intends to ban coal power by 2020, but they still have almost 400 new coal plants under construction or on the drawing board. England, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany have huge offshore wind farms. Some are steadily are growing.

 

[woodgeek]

We'll see if the nanoflowcell is part of the solution. Does this just refer to the US? China has announced that Bejing intends to ban coal power by 2020, but they still have almost 400 new coal plants under construction or on the drawing board. England, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Germany have huge offshore wind farms. Some are steadily are growing.

All good questions.....

--------------------------------------------------

As for offshore, it is all in the EU, and analysts there estimate it costs $0.20/kWh currently, with prices still slowly falling (compare with CapeWind wants to lock in $0.18/kWh +inflation). There is ~6 GW capacity installed. It is growing 30% per year.

This compares to onshore, which is worldwide, has >300 GW installed, and costs $0.05-0.10/kWh where it is currently being built. Prices are basically flat because better sites (giving cheaper power) are being used up.

Stated another way, onshore costs a couple bucks a watt, $/W, and can pay it back from power sold at market rates (<$0.10/kWh), whereas offshore costs several $/W, and might recoup half of that. The difference is an effective subsidy, either from a gov't check or a ratepayer. So, building a GW of offshore right now will cost a premium of $1-2B. I can believe the EU has sunk that much (~$10B) to develop their offshore. Can/will they grow it 20x bigger at this price (which would still be smaller than their onshore)...I don't think so, unless it gets a bit cheaper.

Of course I was a longtime fan of all this stuff, and if PV was going to stay expensive, I would be bullish on offshore b/c there isn't enough onshore. Cheap PV, however, especially with (speculative) cheap grid storage, just seems likely to be a game changer that will wipe out the future development of anything else that isn't as cheap and as green, which would just leave onshore wind and hydro.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess I like the nanoflow cell a LOT better than I like hydrogen FC. And if we had developed it 10 years ago using all the cash from the 'Hydrogen Economy' boondoggle, maybe it would be on the road now and a success. Like Hydrogen however, there is the dreaded 'gas station' problem.....who's going to build out a national/global network of ionic liquid refilling stations? As you know well, EVs don't have this problem given 90% home charging. And the maintenance-free nature of electric charging stations allows even a (well-funded) startup to build out a whole national network of electric quickcharge stations.

 

[begreen]

Good points about offshore wind. The thought of coal being dead still is a sticker. When you say 'coal is dead', in what time frame is this? Germany dropped nukes and is back to coal. Yes they are super bullish on solar and making progress, but coal is still their 24/7 power source for over 40% (like us) . China is largely coal powered and still investing heavily there. South Africa, Australia, India and Poland are mostly coal powered. As much as I want to see this number turn around I think vested interests are going to be heel draggers.

(broken link removed)

 

[woodgeek]

Fair enough. I'm assuming as soon as roughly comparable cost alternatives exist in sufficient quantity, coal will be phased out. Solar without storage is approaching the right price point now, but is still too small. At current growth rates, though, PV will start cutting into all FF energy in about 10 years or so, and could replace it in 20, assuming cheap storage appears.

At current rates of emission, CO2 is increasing by 2.5 ppm per year. I think PV **could** allow us cut emissions by >50% in as little as 20 years, which in my understanding would lead to CO2 levels approaching an asymptote around 450 ppm. Bill McKibben would be pissed, but 'the worst' would be avoided.

 

[begreen]

That's a good start, but it needs to be multifaceted if we are to get to 350 ppm CO2 or less. The transportation sector needs to be addressed too. And then there is this issue of waste and gluttony... We can't go on using 2-3x per capita energy as the rest of the industrialized world. It is not sustainable.

PS: Toward your prior point - Can the next generation make a difference? You bet.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[woodgeek]

I fear that if we get to a more or less stable CO2 level, even with a climate noticeably different from the one we have now, the folks alive then will not see a need to revert to a (historical) climate different from the one they have lived their whole life in.

Over generational time, when it suited us we have altered habitats on a continental scale, often without really being aware of it. Sometimes a forest regrows and natural habitats come back (sort of, in a degraded form). I think this happens not because we want to 'rewild', but just that what we were using the land for ceased to be so useful or profitable, so we moved on and got our thneeds elsewhere.

In the country west of Denver, I recently saw the Pine Beetle wiping out the forests. When I read the historical plaques, they told about how the entire region had been clearcut for fuel for mining operations in the 1800s, and all the forest we thought of as 'natural' was regrowth during the 20th century. Makes you think...pine beetles and fire clear the land (again), another (resistant) species takes root, and 100 years from now its all forested again in whatever climate prevails then.

Perhaps future generations will be more enlightened....heck I guess we are trying to bring back wolves, the everglades, oyster reefs and chunks of the prairie, and clear rats from the Galapagos. Who knows what the kids will try.

 

[begreen]

Without dropping back to the 350 ppm number the risk of irreversible change due to the much greater threat of permafrost methane release increases to become the key issue. There is already evidence that this is on the rise. Second to that, my hunch is that ocean acidfication is becoming a front burner issue that won't be ignorable.

 

[BrotherBart]

The risk of the permafrost release is huge. That and the scheduled 150 year solar flare release. Actually have to kinda wonder about what if the big ones of both happened at the same time.

 

[begreen]

Besides the permafrost release there is concern about the massive stores of deep sea frozen methane. As warmer currents make their way into the Arctic ocean this release grows. The impact as they say in the software biz is non-trivial. We can't afford to raise the bar for CO2 emissions without risking adding to the momentum of irreversible systems release. Current news on arctic methane release is not good.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8401/20140805/fd-methane-plumes-seep-frozen-ocean-floors.htm

 

[Where2]

Coal and Nukes are already dead.
... Most existing (major) Utilities will continue to exist...but your bill will be more complicated.

I wish you'd tell my electric company nuclear is dead. They're still trying to get $$$ for engineering, and permitting for more than one new reactor which may never be built, but the customers will continue to have to pay for it until it truly gets canned.

It is a given my electric bill will get more complicated. As PV becomes more common, at some point my electric utility will want a payment for some portion of my "Net Metered" energy. It is a simple calculation, the "Smart Meter" already tracks how much I have fed to the grid. All these bogus ALEC driven models that want a fixed monthly fee for "net metering" overlook the easy to determine scalable actual customer impact net metering has. Base my impact on the grid on how much I "Net" to the grid every month, not some random fixed fee that exceeds what I originally paid in expenses to maintain the grid before I installed PV.

When I compare kWh used per month with my co-workers, my 53 year old house with two occupants is keeping up with a family of 3 in a house that is only 13 years old with all new windows and solar hot water.

If some handy new battery technology comes along that allows me to on-site store my excess electrons, I'd consider upping my PV array to a system large enough to handle 100% of my home's needs. In the meantime, I will continue to automate devices throughout my home to make the most of the energy I generate on-site, and feed as little back to the grid as I can.

 

[BrotherBart]

I wish you'd tell my electric company nuclear is dead.

Wish you would tell the CEO of our co-op that coal is dead. His fifteen year dream of breaking out of the agreements for nuke and NG power finally happened and he took us to a bunch of coal plants. Just as NG prices dropped through the floor. And the nuke plant has a design life that has a long time to go.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

since it has been brought up that methane MAY be a larger problem, here are a couple papers that say it MAY not be. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7451/full/nature12129.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
learned a little here. didn't realize the arctic was ice free so recently. begs the question of the affect of methane release back then.
a whole lot of thoughts and questions.

 

[woodgeek]

Besides the permafrost release there is concern about the massive stores of deep sea frozen methane. As warmer currents make their way into the Arctic ocean this release grows. The impact as they say in the software biz is non-trivial. We can't afford to raise the bar for CO2 emissions without risking adding to the momentum of irreversible systems release. Current news on arctic methane release is not good.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8401/20140805/fd-methane-plumes-seep-frozen-ocean-floors.htm

This same story more or less has gone viral like 4 times over the last 5 years, and every time I've tried to bite into it, I can't find anything hard there. The story at your link quotes the scientists themselves saying their conclusions are preliminary and 'speculative'.

The natural mixing time for the ocean below 50m or so is measured in thousands of years. I do not think there is a lot methane hydrate shallower than that. The stuff thats deeper, until I see someone argue compellingly otherwise, will likely still be there 1000 years from now. The scientists **hypothesize** that a finger of warm water may be present in that area to explain the needed warming on the sea floor, but did not report any sea floor temp measurements?

Without dropping back to the 350 ppm number the risk of irreversible change due to the much greater threat of permafrost methane release increases to become the key issue. There is already evidence that this is on the rise. Second to that, my hunch is that ocean acidfication is becoming a front burner issue that won't be ignorable.

Hmmm. I have never actually seen or studied the science behind the 350 number, nor have I heard anyone really promulgate it other than McKibben, who I have little respect for. I see his organization as a little too much of a personality cult, filled with young people, driven by the usual....fear and uncertainty. I'd be happy to be educated otherwise, but Bill has lost me. I don't like folks that push fear as a way to get ahead.

While I am 100% onboard with the science and existential threat of AGW, the science I read still seems to contain a lot of uncertainty re both climate sensitivity to forcing (making the predicted degree of warming uncertain ±50%) and the non-linear rates at which different sinks remove CO2. Bottom line: I think the amount of CO2 emission reduction required to stabilize ppm CO2 remains highly uncertain....could be anywhere from 60% to 90% reduction required. I also do not currently believe in abrupt 'tipping points' to an unlivable climate, nor have I seen any scientists really selling the idea in a way that sounds to me like they believe it.

Pollyanna mode off....

Of course, I think extinction is THE real problem, and AGW is just the latest way that humans are finding to destroy habitats wholesale without having to lay a finger on them, and has the effect of wiping out 'preserved' habitats (e.g. Yellowstone) as well. Will the warming of a 450 ppm climate suffice to effectively destroy or significantly degrade all existing habitats? I think it is within the error bars.

The ocean acidification problem has legs. The habitats and megafauna of the ocean now are really different relative to that from 50 or 100 years ago, what they would look like in 50 years and at 450 ppm CO2 are really unknown, but it might not be pretty. The major uncertainty IMO is 'mixing'. It seems acidification effects are not (currently) global...but localized to surface waters which could be getting their CO2 from localized emissions. I don't know.

Sea level rise is also baked in. Future archeologists will have a nice chronology of human artifacts laid out (underwater) along the coastlines of the world. They'll be happy.

---------------------------------------------------

The current FF technology use pattern (and its growth) leads us to a broken climate and biosphere by 2100 at the very latest, but most of the problem is future emissions. New technology (PV and EVs) have the **technical potential** to get us to a much reduced CO2 emission rate, at a price for 'energy services' similar to what we pay now. This allows most fossil carbon to be left in the ground, and maybe leaves us an Earth with a stable climate and natural habitats not too dissimilar or displaced from historical habitats. Will that tech be fostered and get us there in 20 years? Or will something else come up and get in the way, as it so often does?

 

[begreen]

http://350.org/about/science/

 

[Doug MacIVER]

seems like we are heading away from progress, but it is tied together. Hansen a great mind, lousy predictor of temps.. can't predict temp but can tell us where co2 levels should be.no need to fill space with the charts. his 1988 a,b,c, chart off just a little. his c scenario with no co2 increase since 2000 would alter his entire chart upward away from the /3-.5 actual rise in temps. off by what percentage. sources in the article date to 2008-09, time for him to adjust prognostication again?

 

[woodgeek]

http://350.org/about/science/

So the 350 thing goes back to Hansen, and a paper of his from 2008. I don't want to pick on Hansen, who I still think is honestly trying to do good science, and who has been treated very badly and developed some unpleasant, but ultimately defensive behaviors.

If Hansen's view still holds in 2030, folks can push harder to drive ppm CO2 below 450. Cheap RE will be an essential part of their strategy.

The 'Progress' part IMO, and relevant to the OP, is that while our view of science of AGW is not so different from 10 years ago, 2004, the realization of cheap PV changes the future view for the better.....

No longer do we have to imagine implementing costly public policy (e.g. carbon taxes) to force expensive clean energy (a la Cape Wind), battle with FF interests, make do with less energy (e.g. putting on a sweater, shudder) and developing all sorts of new RE schemes....kite power, tidal barrage, low-temp geothermal and OTEC and urban windmills.

Now we just need some (cheap) mandates for solar, to streamline permitting, maybe fund some loan guarantees for grid storage tech and grid upgrades and then free enterprise will take it from there. And it might just get there faster than expected in 2004.

I'd say that is progress.

 

[begreen]

"Rainy" Seattle has panels going in at the rate of one every 4 seconds on average this year according to our installer (unconfirmed). If so that would be amazing. We pay a lot more per KWh due to the Made in WA incentive plan, so the rate of adoption is quite remarkable.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...make-gains-america-even-rainy-seattle-n169021