
China Installs Nearly 10 Gigawatts of Solar in First Quarter - jdc
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/24/china-installs-nearly-10-gigawatts-of-solar-in-first-quarter-up-22/
======
castratikron
The 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#Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Consumption)

~~~
shoguning
Perhaps 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
It'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-
manufac...](https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/global-solar-pv-
manufacturing-capacity-expansion-plans-rebound-in-q1)

[https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/planned-solar-
manufactu...](https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/planned-solar-
manufacturing-capacity-expansions-bigger-than-expected-in-1h)

[https://www.power-technology.com/comment/global-pv-
capacity-...](https://www.power-technology.com/comment/global-pv-capacity-
expected-reach-969gw-2025/)

~~~
djrogers
The odds of having enough energy storage in place in 10 years to eliminate
fossil fuel energy production approach zero. Solar and wind are great
production methods, and are proving more and more econoimcal every month, but
neither con produce energy on demand in all conditions.

Without a huge national grid to compensate for weather patterns (problematic
due to transmission losses), or a massive increase in storage capacity and
technology, we just can't eliminate fossil fuel energy.

~~~
lev99
My understanding is that the high voltage transmissions have little
resistance, and that the biggest problems with a national grid is not
transmission loses but the cost of building thousands and thousands of miles
of high voltage electrical wiring to connect existing subgrids together.

Do I have a misconception?

~~~
Retric
Adding wiring is fairly cheap per mile, connecting different electric networks
via substations is the more expensive bit.

The larger issue is capacity needs to be used regularly to be cost effective.
If you want to send 10GW for 24 hour a day or 15 minutes they both need the
same infrastructure.

------
tombrossman
Interestingly, 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."_

~~~
gascan
In 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
Good point. Betting against your own failures is worth doing when you're
fixing them.

------
guiomie
Someone 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 !

------
awakeasleep
I 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
It is also enough to power 8 DeLoreans!

~~~
yazr
This should be the new official measuring units for all green, fusion and
time-travel related articles

------
ctdonath
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. 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
> 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
_Solar 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
Good 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.

------
sqldba
Is 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).

~~~
FooHentai
80% 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
You should always factor in a capital cost (replacement, repair, etc).

~~~
FooHentai
Doing 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.

------
carbonneutered
Will 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.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Disapprove of their government by all means, and even apply diplomatic
pressure to encourage them to change it, but I can hardly see why anyone would
want to mock their development of renewable energy. If they don't, the whole
world suffers.

~~~
konschubert
I don't know if he's mocking China. He is is expressing the ambivalent feeling
that many have about China, and he's doing so in a bit of a comedic way.

~~~
stuffedBelly
I am all for witty sarcasm, but this one doesn't add much value to the
discussion given weak correlation between mass surveillance and renewable
energy.

~~~
politician
Is there a weak connection when one literally powers the other?

~~~
stuffedBelly
You are making assumptions. How do you know what powers or will power the
surveillance system in China? Also, mass surveillance will always be there
regardless of forms of energy it is on, hence the weak correlation.

~~~
woolvalley
Not to mention running these video cameras and computer systems is fairly
minor in terms of how much energy they consume compared to other activities in
the country.

------
arnoooooo
This is incredible. If only they also stopped investments in fossil fuels...
Chinese banks are by far the largest investors in fossil fuel projects today.

------
propman
[http://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.

