APR 29

The New York Times published a rundown today of the top ten states in installed solar power capacity.  That California was number one was no surprise, but the other nine were interesting to see.  Here's the full list:

1. California: 47 percent with 971 megawatts

2. New Jersey: 14 percent with 293 MW

3. Colorado: 5 percent with 108 MW

4. Arizona: 5 percent with 101 MW

5. Nevada: 5 percent with 97 MW

6. Florida: 4 percent with 73 MW

7. New York: 3 percent with 54 MW

8. Pennsylvania: 3 percent with 54 MW

9. New Mexico: 2 percent with 45 MW

10. North Carolina: 2 percent with 42 MW

New Jersey has made its way to second place with some major small-scale solar initiatives.  Rooftops and utility poles across the state have gotten the solar treatment and all that distributed solar has added up to a nice chunk of MW.

Pennsylvania and North Carolina were interesting additions, as solar programs in other areas, like the Southwest, have gotten a bit more attention.  But it is worth noting that there is over a 900 MW gap between California and North Carolina.  California is really at the level I wish all states would strive for, and while 42 MW is nothing to sneeze at, that type of number making our top ten shows we have a much longer way to go overall.

via NY Times

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by KenZ, April 29, 2011

More useful would have been two metrics: installed capacity per capita and installed capacity per total state capacity used (meaning, as a percentage of total energy usage).

Comparing California (a large state) directly to Nevada (much, much lower population) is kinda meaningless.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by StevenC, April 29, 2011

yes, its important to know the ratio of solar power created to total power usage

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Those number look off
written by Matt, April 29, 2011

1. California: 47 percent with 971 megawatts
9. New Mexico: 2 percent with 45 MW
10. North Carolina: 2 percent with 42 MW

Based on these numbers New Mexico use more total electric (not solar total) than North Carolina (???)
And better yet 23.5*2 = 47, so 23.5*45 = 1057.5 MW to get to 47% for New Mexico so it uses more power than California. Sorry but "that dog don't hunt".

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Glad to see NC in the top 10
written by David Guion, April 30, 2011

Several green projects here in Greensboro probably contributed to that ranking, including the Proximity Hotel, which earned LEED Platinum certification.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Financing Solar Panels with EEIM
written by Bo Smith, April 30, 2011

Wish my state MS was a Solar Friendly state. We have TVA in our territory which will buy back but most everyone is unfamiliar with the fact that we can financing solar panels. Good to hear other states are taking aim, but financing is a need as well as lower cost for us to enjoy this great renewable energy resource. Keep up the good work and maybe one day we will have this problem solved.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Rooftop Solar Best Practice
written by Gudgeon, May 01, 2011

What is the danger of a dwelling unit roof collapsing due to the extra strain put on it by the solar cells? Perhaps not an immediate danger, but at what point in time in the future will it become unsafe. I am sure it will become unsafe earlier in its life than it would if there had been no solar cells, but we need to be able to quantify the matter as a statistic.

I also haven't considered catastrophic wind loadings. As we know, there are strong winds which blow from time to time. These strong winds act like a lever, trying to wrench the solar array off the roof. The stress loading from these events needs to be added to the total stress degradation budget of the roof structure.

Perhaps we need strain gauges installed at the anchor points of the solar arrays. This way, the consumer can see the data in real-time in his/her dwelling unit. The informed consumer can decide whether to call his solar provider or his roofing specialist according to the stress loading statistics displayed on the wall of the dwelling unit.

• 
• -2
• 
• 

Interesting
written by Corina|Electric car, May 01, 2011

More states should follow this examples. It seems that California is going all the way, it is by far the on that leads.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by samantharuth11, May 01, 2011

i always love good news for environmental issues. i'm waiting for the time all of us will be using solar energy. maybe i could build my house with a solar solar power capacity then i wouldn't have to pay electric bills.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Math
written by Russell, May 03, 2011

@Matt: The percents listed are the percent of US capacity.
Based on the numbers, the total US capacity is about 2066 MW. If we add up these top ten states, it is about 90% of total US, which means that all of the other states have a long way to go.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Alice, May 05, 2011

California at 971MW is about the same as 1/2 of the capacity of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Of course those of us who live near Diablo would like to see it Shut Down before it turns out like Fukushima Daiichi. So let's get those panels up!

• 
• -2
• 
• 

Good efforts
written by Concernergy, May 06, 2011

Good to see that these states are using solar energy. It is also important for other states to mark their positions on the list and contribute their part towards a greener future.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Nellis AFB
written by Charles, June 20, 2011

Nellis AFB just installed a 25 MW field of solar collectors to offset the base's power consumption. I wonder if that was included in total for Nevada.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Diablo Canyon compared to the 971 MW solar systems
written by Fred, December 20, 2011

Diablo Canyon can run 24/7 most of the year without refueling, and can make 48,000 MW in 24 hours without even running 100% each hour. While the 971 MW of solar make at best 5,000 MW per day, less in the winter. That is only about 10% of a large Nuclear plant! Many coal power plants back east are in the 5,400 MW capacity in one location! Burning over 800 tons of coal per hour.

Many more solar panels need to be installed before taking some of the worst polluting coal plants off line. Remember Nuclear has only killed a handful of people in the past 100 years, while coal plants have killed many thousands more, not just in the coal mines, but lung disorders from being downwind of the power plants too!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment