11 ms·
China Installs Nearly 10 Gigawatts of Solar in First Quarter
- awakeasleep 8y agoI was trying to get context on this number- 10 Gigawatts of power is enough to power 7,000,000 western homes! China is supposed to have 455 million homes, and there is no way the average chinese household uses as much electricity as a western one, but I don't know how to make a reasonable comparison. Also in the US, commercial and residential use accounts for 40% of energy use, so this should be a pretty substantial amount of clean energy, even for a country as big as china.
- Aardwolf 8y agoIt is also enough to power 8 DeLoreans!
- yazr 8y agoThis should be the new official measuring units for all green, fusion and time-travel related articles
- djrogers 8y agoThat 10 Gigawatt number is the 'nameplate' number, not it's actual production capacity. The nameplate number assumes the panels are in 100% perfect sunlight 24/7 - typical production numbrees range from 10-20% depending on location, weather, air pollution, and time of year.
- pjc50 8y agoThe UK's largest power station Drax had a 4GW capacity at its peak, and the current UK demand is in the region of 40GW.
- clomond 8y agoWas curious too so did some Napkin math with some numbers I found. 10GW Solar Nameplate capacity added in Q1Y2018 17% Capacity factor (Average for solar in China) [1] 1135 kWh (1.12 Mwh) avg annual household electricity use [2] Makes it: 10GW nameplate capacity * hours in Year (24 h * 365 days) = 87600 GwH (theoretical maximum generation) Expected actual generation = Capacity factor (17%) * Theoretical maximum generation 87600 GwH = 14600 GwH annually 14600 GwH( 14,600,000 MwH ) expected generation in a year / 1.12 MwH consumed per average Chinese household means = ~ 13 Million Chinese households powered per year due to the solar installed in these 3 months [1] capacity factor from Wikipedia (1st paragraph) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China [2] average household electricity usage by country 2010 data http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity...
- castratikron 8y agoThe US used about 2 million GWh of electricity in 2015[1]. There are 8760 hours in a year. So the power usage averaged over the entire year is 243GW. The amount of solar the article is talking about could supply about 5% of that average usage. And that's just what was installed in three months. If the rate of installation stayed the same then it would take five years for all US electricity needs to be met by solar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Co...
- shoguning 8y agoPerhaps I'm missing something but the capacity factor for solar tends to be around 20%, meaning that 10GW of nameplate capacity generates an average of closer to 2GW in practice. I didn't see it addressed in the article, so I'm assuming the number is nameplate capacity.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoIt's true solar capacity factor is between 10-25%, so nameplate isn't terribly useful. With that said, the rate of solar being installed isn't slowing down, and more fabs are coming online each year. I would be shocked if there's any fossil fuel generation online in 10 years, 15 tops. https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/global-solar-pv-manufacturing-capacity-expansion-plans-rebound-in-q1 https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/global-solar-pv-manufac... https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/planned-solar-manufacturing-capacity-expansions-bigger-than-expected-in-1h https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/planned-solar-manufactu... https://www.power-technology.com/comment/global-pv-capacity-expected-reach-969gw-2025/ https://www.power-technology.com/comment/global-pv-capacity-...
- yostrovs 8y agoSolar and oil (and natural gas) supply different markets and compete mostly at the margins.
- 8y ago
- tombrossman 8y agoInterestingly, today's NASA Earth Observatory image of the day is "Smog Smothers Solar Energy in China" https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92054 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92054 A quote from the article: "The researchers found that in the most polluted areas, available solar energy decreased as much as 35 percent, or 1.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day. That is enough energy to power a vacuum cleaner for one hour, wash twelve pounds of laundry, or run a laptop for five to 10 hours."
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoEastern China is not that great for solar anyways even without the smog: it would at least be foggy and cloudy even if the air was clean. Looking at the picture and reading the article, that capacity is mostly being installed out in western China where pollution (and densities) are much less of a problem. On the other hand, without super grid support, it isn’t going to help much in solving the east’s problems.
- gascan 8y agoIn some sense, it's enviable to be in a position where bringing more solar power online will increase the production of your existing solar! (by eventually reducing coal emissions and thus pollution)
- agumonkey 8y agoGood point. Betting against your own failures is worth doing when you're fixing them.
- volgo 8y agoLove the salty comments on HN everytime China does something great. "Well actualllllly"
- carbonneutered 8y agoWill China be the first regime to have carbon neutral high-tech mass surveillance? With their newfound riches, imagine what futuristic, renewables-powered dystopia will flourish there.
- justicezyx 8y ago> futuristic, renewables-powered dystopia Why is it a dystopia? Assuming one day China goes to space, achieved nuclear fusion. Would human being be more freed in that way than stuck in the freedom in a tiny ball of mud in the universe?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoFree to go to space, but not free to criticize your government. Nope, that's not real freedom.
- justicezyx 8y agoI was implying that earth government are not going to control outerspace nations.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoOh, I see.
- stuffedBelly 8y agoThis is a bit far-fetched. Not everything China does is for mass surveillance...this could simply be the Chinese government had a taste of how bad Beijing's air quality is and decided to push harder towards renewable energy.
- Johnny555 8y agoAs opposed to the USA's coal driven mass-surveillance? All developed countries are performing mass surveilance of their citizens, some are more visible (and restrictive) than others.
- ctdonath 8y agoMy rule of thumb: solar power generates 10 watts per square meter. There's a fixed maximum of 1300 watts per square meter of sunlight. For large scale technology, assume 10% efficiency. Another 10% from that survives air occlusion, clouds, night, angles, dust/snow cover, buffer battery efficiency, maintenance, breakage, etc. Round down, and we see 10W/m^2 practical output. Professional quantification of this back-of-the-napkin calculation welcome.
- Jedd 8y ago> My rule of thumb: solar power generates 10 watts per square meter. > There's a fixed maximum of 1300 watts per square meter of sunlight. I'd suggest you qualify your numbers by noting that you're talking specifically about Solar PV. Solar Thermal appears to offer 3x the kWh/m2 over Solar PV -- and mitigates at least one of your concerns ('night'). That ratio will doubtless change as PVC efficiency improves, but if that 3x factor is accurate now, it'll be a long time before PVCs match or exceed on square metre ratings alone.
- ctdonath 8y agoSolar Thermal appears to offer 3x the kWh/m2 over Solar PV I'm wondering at the difference between your measuring "kWh/m2" vs mine of "W/m2". Upshot: averaged over a year, what's the power output? are you including all "off" hours?
- Jedd 8y agoGood question. I simply did some googling for comparative efficiency per unit area between PVC and solar thermal -- the 3x factor seemed to come up regularly from different sources. The kWh/m2 was the unit most of those sources were using. Time of day is very interesting, as PVC's are going to be useful earlier in the day, and solar thermal can still be providing good power output well after sunset. Consequently, in practice, I'd see a combination of both technologies (combined with good storage and grid capabilities, etc) as being most effective way of harnessing sunlight in the short to medium term. Averaging over a year ... geo / climate variations (eg distance from equator, monsoon cycles, etc) are likely going to affect both technologies similarly.
- propman 8y agohttp://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/71465 http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/71465 I couldn't find it for solar but it should be similar if I remember correctly. China has created almost TWICE the number of GW of capacity for wind than the United States but USA still gets almost the same renewable energy from wind as china because US is 93% more efficient at generating wind due to a whole lot of reasons, but primarily because of capitalism and market economy driving decisions rather than the State.
- Proven 8y agoRed Ponzi expands until it doesn’t
- guiomie 8y agoSomeone wrote this in the comment section of the article: "One of the most inspiring factoids for me is that a mere 10 years ago, 10 GW was the total accumulated installed capacity for the entire planet. And here we are with 1 single country installing that in 3 months." If true, this is amazing !
- sqldba 8y agoIs this going to be a massive maintenance problem in ten years time? I thought that’s the lifespan of panels. Usually the problem with building lots of infrastructure is it gets expensive to maintain. It happens with roads and buildings. Will it happen with solar? (I’m hoping not because efficiency is still improving and prices are still going down whereas for roads I think it went up - but I don’t know why).
- dgacmu 8y ago25-30 years. 80% efficiency after 20 years.
- FooHentai 8y ago80% of power at 20 years is fairly standard for solar panels. It's a slow taper too, you just lose around 1% of output each year you sweat them. There'll be other losses due to failures, damage etc. but it's not a situation where you should factor in a strict capital replacement cycle.
- ianai 8y agoYou should always factor in a capital cost (replacement, repair, etc).
- FooHentai 8y agoDoing it in the accounting manner that a typical firm would do is foolish in this instance. A homeowner is going to sweat assets, and in the case of Solar a 1% degradation per year means that, short of some damage or failure, the time you're likely to sweat them is between 20 and 80 years.
- philipkglass 8y agoActual usable lifetime is significantly longer. There's a good compendium of information here: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html If you want to do a deep dive, the open preprint of "Photovoltaic Degradation Rates: an Analytical Review" is a good start: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf It's from 2011 so is a little dated, but later studies have found about the same degradation rates. It's good because it uses data from large numbers of real-world solar installations. Most degradation studies are reporting on only a small number of modules and/or use artificial accelerated aging conditions. The median degradation rate for crystalline silicon PV modules was found to be 0.5% per year. This would imply more than 40 years for the median module performance to decline to 80% of original rated output. I personally use 30 years as a more conservative rule of thumb, especially since modules appear to follow a degradation "bathtub curve." But it is clear from field data that the median solar module produces useful power levels far longer than 10 years. I suspect that modules designed for durability can achieve median lifetimes over 50 years.
- arnoooooo 8y agoThis is incredible. If only they also stopped investments in fossil fuels... Chinese banks are by far the largest investors in fossil fuel projects today.