But this article doesn’t say anything about power generation. It only discusses nameplate capacity. Because the sun moves in the sky, and we have clouds, and night, and dust that sticks to panels, etc., the actual generated power is far less than the nameplate capacity.

For example, one set solar panels on my roof yielded 5.2MWh in 2017. Their nameplate capacity is 5kW, so the nameplate yearly generation is 5 * 24 * 365 = 44MWh, so my yield is about 12%. The other, smaller set (better panels, better site) yielded 4MWh or 15%. Actual generation is roughly an order of magnitude smaller than nameplate suggests.

And I live in California, where we don’t get a lot of rain - these numbers could be worse.

If you look at the power that will be actually generated by this new solar capacity referenced in the article, it’s far less than the power that will be generated by the other technologies, just because solar has such a bad yield.

So it’s not even true that incremental power generation is dominated by solar.

I love solar power, but I don’t think articles like this advance the cause, because they aren’t thinking critically enough. Lazy reporting does us no favors.

Don't let engineering numbers mislead you. The only number that really matters is cost per kwh at scale. Utilities are investing in this technology because that number has become favorable. We're starting to cross over from early, experimental deployments to bigger production. Utilities, which are very risk-averse, are becoming comfortable with solar.

12-15% capacity factor is comparable to a natural gas peaker plant.

Right, but the average capacity factor for natural gas plants in the US is about 56%.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652

The capacity factor for utility scale solar PV in the US was 27% in 2017:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

The capacity factor gap with utility scale gas plants isn't as large as you might guess from looking at residential rooftop solar.

True. I guess the overall point I was trying to make is that the low capacity factor of solar strengthens the case for this beginning the real transition to renewables, since utilities are used to low capacity-factor assets (and are still choosing solar in spite of that drawback)

At some point within the next 3-5 years, storage + solar will exceed the capacity factor of natural gas without the fuel price volatility.

"New" is relative, hence the Bill Gates picking up the penny example. Sure, it's a true statement the second he picks up the penny, but it's not a meaningful one. In the case of the article, we are talking about a single quarter.

"New" is certainly meaningful. It gives an indication of where the market is going, investors want this information. It definitely meaningful to GE's natural gas turbine division, which has had big losses since demand has been less than they have forecasted

"Renewables boom is a bust for gas equipment suppliers like GE" https://www.utilitydive.com/news/renewables-boom-is-a-bust-f...

Sure, it has a meaning, but it does not have the meaning implied by the title, hence clickbait, which was paidleaf's point.

The title says "new" and the article discusses new generation. Paidleaf said the title makes an implication about overall generation, how does it do that?

It is meaningful here, though. If Gates started showing indications that he was primarily going to pick up pennies from now on, that'd have important implications and questions raised.

The article could have made a stronger case about the broader trends: although this is referring only to a single quarter's worth of new capacity in the US, this trend has been happening on a longer term in many other countries.

> The importance of noting that solar is the biggest source of new power is that is signifies the economics of power generation have changed

Not necessarily. Solar becoming the biggest source of new power doesn't mean that there aren't any new projects for gas plants etc., and if people are still building new non-solar plants then solar's economics aren't always better than non-solar sources, particularly since the economics of power generation are very much geographically dependent.

Solar becoming the biggest source of new power is an important milestone, but it's also a relatively meaningless statistic. More important would be measuring the rate of change of solar adoption in new power generation projects, if it's positive then either new solar projects are bigger than previous solar projects (for a constant rate of new projects year over year, meaning that solar is scaling well), or the number of solar projects is increasing (meaning that solar has become relevant in more and more areas), or both. Either way, if you're concerned about solar adoption, that's the real statistic to track.