China Smashes Solar Installation Record In May (oilprice.com) 117
An anonymous reader quotes a report from OilPrice.com: China installed its highest solar power capacity for a single month in May, according to official data, which showed mind-boggling figures that the country installed more solar capacity in a month than any other nation did for the entire 2024. With 93 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity installed in May, China smashed its own record of 71 GW in December 2024, per data from the National Energy Administration cited by Bloomberg.
China's solar capacity additions in May were rushed ahead of a new government policy -- effective June 1 -- to remove pricing protection for solar power projects. Under these protections, solar projects had all but guaranteed profits when they start operations. Another new rule, effective May 1, made connecting rooftop panels to the grid more difficult. These new policies are expected to moderate the growth in solar power additions this summer, analysts say. A separate report notes that China's cumulative installed solar capacity has surpassed 1 TW, according to the National Energy Administration (NEA). "By the end of May 2025, solar capacity had reached 1.08 TW (1,080 GW), up 56.9% year on year," reports pv magazine.
"NEA data show total power generation capacity stood at 3.61 TW at the end of May, an 18.8% increase from a year earlier."
China's solar capacity additions in May were rushed ahead of a new government policy -- effective June 1 -- to remove pricing protection for solar power projects. Under these protections, solar projects had all but guaranteed profits when they start operations. Another new rule, effective May 1, made connecting rooftop panels to the grid more difficult. These new policies are expected to moderate the growth in solar power additions this summer, analysts say. A separate report notes that China's cumulative installed solar capacity has surpassed 1 TW, according to the National Energy Administration (NEA). "By the end of May 2025, solar capacity had reached 1.08 TW (1,080 GW), up 56.9% year on year," reports pv magazine.
"NEA data show total power generation capacity stood at 3.61 TW at the end of May, an 18.8% increase from a year earlier."
Imagine explaining solar (Score:4, Insightful)
To someone who has never heard of it before.
So you're telling me these things make electricity from sunlight?
And it's totally passive?
They last for 10-15 years before being replaced by newer more efficient panels?
And once again you're saying these devices make electricity for free from sunlight?
*smacks forehead*
Why aren't they installed on every surface?
idk? Gay frogs or woke something or other
Re: (Score:1)
Sunlight is the keyword here, they don't work at night.
However that can be managed and new power storage techniques are being developed all the time.
It's a matter of when in countries that have coal mining jobs holding cities up.
Re: (Score:2)
The average solar PV capacity factor in the U.S. is 24.5%. 3.61 TW at 24.5% for one year is 7.7 PWh. Total electricity usage in China last year was 9.5 PWh.
If they figure out storage, their fossil fuel plants can all be shut down in a few years.
Re:Imagine explaining solar (Score:4, Interesting)
"If they figure out storage, their fossil fuel plants can all be shut down in a few years."
Guess what, they are figuring it out. Storing a kWh now just adds a few cents to its cost.
Re: (Score:2)
"If they figure out storage, their fossil fuel plants can all be shut down in a few years."
Guess what, they are figuring it out. Storing a kWh now just adds a few cents to its cost.
You meant to say guess what they knew all along.
Storing electricity, is a concept as old as ripping people off for it.
Re: (Score:3)
> Storing a kWh now just adds a few cents to its cost.
It's more than that, it roughly doubles the cost of the install.
Of course doubling the cost in China means it goes from about 80 cents to 1.60, which means it's still 1/4th the cost the same dispatch capacity as nuclear, which is why their nuclear program is 1/5th of their original plan.
Re: (Score:3)
China installed 91GWh of grid scale battery storage last year, doubling the total installed amount of the previous year. It will probably double again this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding batteries just costs a few cents/kWh.
China is well on its way to becoming an electrostate.
The US is stuck with high cost polluting fossils.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sunlight is the keyword here, they don't work at night"
yet that doesn't mean they're completely useless in the dark.
large installations - i'm not sure at what size they become useful for the following purpose - can provide grid services, specifically reactive power which is critical to grid stability
Re: (Score:1)
yet that doesn't mean they're completely useless in the dark.
large installations - i'm not sure at what size they become useful for the following purpose - can provide grid services, specifically reactive power which is critical to grid stability
And yet I recall a few articles highlighted on Slashdot that made opposing claims.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
That last link is likely the most relevant. There's a claim that new inverters can provide "synthetic inertia" but this is an untested technology. As much as I like to see new technology I also like to see simple solutions to problems. If spinning metal solves the grid stability problem then do that. An inverter that is tryin
Re: (Score:3)
Sunlight is the keyword here, they don't work at night. However that can be managed and new power storage techniques are being developed all the time.
Correct. Teslas Powerwall has generally addressed this at the personal consumer level. And most humans don’t work at night either, making addressing that demand a bit easier.
It's a matter of when in countries that have coal mining jobs holding cities up.
Adapt or die. Coal is dying. In those cities and countries, we must determine if it is corruption or capability holding back progress. And then address it.
Re: (Score:3)
And most humans donâ(TM)t work at night either, making addressing that demand a bit easier.
I've recently started looking at my power consumption on a 15-minute graph, and it turns out that power usage isn't all that much less during the night. In fact, at times it is higher because all the lights are turned up. But even at night, there's the fridge and freezer, the house electronics, security cameras, etc.
Turns out the stuff I need for work - a notebook and an external screen - barely register.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:1)
And most humans donâ(TM)t work at night either, making addressing that demand a bit easier.
Many Americans work from home and play video games at night. The only difference between the two is that during daytime (working) hours a worker uses a corporate laptop, after work they fire-up their multi-monitor gaming rig with the latest cpu/GPU and a KW ATX power supply.
Such workers likely use more electricity when gaming after-hours than during working hours...
Demand is low after midnight (Score:2)
If you actually look at real world power demand curves you will see that power demand decreases, not increases, at night.
Yes, maybe there are some slashdotters playing video games at two in the morning, but this is not a huge power draw.
Re: (Score:1)
Policy:
It is the policy of the United States that coal is essential to our national and economic security. It is a national priority to support the domestic coal industry by removing Federal regulatory barriers that undermine coal production, encouraging the utilization of coal to meet growing domestic energy demands, increasing American coal exports, and ensuring that Federal policy does not discriminate against coal production or coal-fired electricity generation.
Purpose:
America’s coal resources are vast, with a current estimated value in the trillions of dollars, and are more than capable of substantially contributing to American energy independence with excess to export to support allies and our economic competitiveness. Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers. We must encourage and support our Nation’s coal industry to increase our energy supply, lower electricity costs, stabilize our grid, create high-paying jobs, support burgeoning industries, and assist our allies.
Must have been a fluke...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that seek to transition the Nation away from coal production and electricity generation.
LOL thanks for proving the point.
Find them all so they can be removed. Stopping the transition away from coal is the point... coal is to be favored instead of discouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not a fluke, but it appears to be temporary.
Sec. 6. Supporting American Coal as an Energy Source. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall identify any guidance, regulations, programs, and policies within their respective executive department or agency that seek to transition the Nation away from coal production and electricity generation.
I see you fell into the "read as much as needed to confirm my bias" trap. The very next paragraph directs the agencies to kill all programs identified in 6a. So no, this is not a fluke, nor temporary. This is a "full steam ahead on coal". Alternatively you could have just read the ridiculous title of the EO: "Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry"
Re: (Score:2)
That order to seek alternatives to coal is an important one.
No. The order is not to seek alternatives to coal. The order is to identify existing regulations and policies to seek alternatives to coal.
That one sentence could effectively negate the impact of the rest of executive order.
You're reading this exactly opposite to what it does. The reason agencies are being asked to identify policies to seek alternatives to coal is so that the executive can rescind them.
Re:Imagine explaining solar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:1)
Right, my reliance on a solar panel in Colorado at night is mitigated by the solar panel on the opposite side of the planet in India - I don't need local storage because the sun is shining in India, so I can just get power from there?
Uh, no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sunlight is the keyword here, they don't work at night."
Unlike nukes.
Heatwaves raise river temperatures, forcing plants to shut down because the water is too hot to cool reactors without exceeding safety limits. Droughts reduce water levels so much that there's simply not enough to run the cooling systems. Freezing conditions can block intakes entirely. These aren't rare events anymore.
Maintenance and refueling take reactors offline for months at a time, while solar panels and wind turbines can be swapped
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike nukes.
Heatwaves raise river temperatures, forcing plants to shut down because the water is too hot to cool reactors without exceeding safety limits. Droughts reduce water levels so much that there's simply not enough to run the cooling systems. Freezing conditions can block intakes entirely. These aren't rare events anymore.
[citation needed]
We seen nuclear power plants all over the world operating in all kinds of climates, including places that get quite hot. I'm to believe that some river water got too hot to cool down a nuclear power plant? To the point they were forced to shutdown? I need a source on that to believe you.
Maintenance and refueling take reactors offline for months at a time, while solar panels and wind turbines can be swapped or fixed quickly and cheaply. And if a wind turbine fails, you get a dented field or a blown fuse. If a reactor fails, you get a contaminated exclusion zone and a decades-long disaster.
A fleet of nuclear power plants can have their scheduled maintenance staggered so there is no loss in output. On the other hand all solar power goes down as the sun sets, and all windmills stop spinning
Re: (Score:3)
But that it gets too hot to deposit in the river. Because the river does not have enough water in it to cool it down locally.
That is a big problem in countries with actual environment laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that the water gets too hot to cool the reactor.
But that it gets too hot to deposit in the river. Because the river does not have enough water in it to cool it down locally.
That is a big problem in countries with actual environment laws.
I realize this is a matter of the water from the nuclear power plants getting too warm that it could kill fish, but that wasn't the claim being made. The claim was that the water would be too hot to cool the reactors safely. There's no safety issue involved, and it could be easily resolved with a cooling tower or just a big artificial lake, but that takes land and money that they didn't have for the power plant. So they have to choose to reduce power or risk killing some fish. Damage to the power plant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cedengineering.com... [cedengineering.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If only methods of storing electricity existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Numerous studies have shown that if you combine solar PV with batteries you can have 24/7/365 power at a LCOE that is about half that of fossil fuels or nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
https://gemenergyanalytics.sub... [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Numerous studies have shown that if you combine solar PV with batteries you can have 24/7/365 power at a LCOE that is about half that of fossil fuels or nuclear.
Maybe in the optimum location, but for most of the planet, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everywhere all of the time but most places most of the time.
https://ember-energy.org/lates... [ember-energy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the text in your link?
It is repeating what I just said: in the optimum location.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the map in the link?
It shows >80% of the time for most locations around the world... even in the far north latitudes (where wind can easily make up the difference).
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the map in the link?
Yes. It shows selected locations. It does not show "most of the world".
It shows >80% of the time for most locations around the world
Ah, not a native English speaker. When we say "24/7", it means 100% of the time, not 80%.
Quoting you:
Numerous studies have shown that if you combine solar PV with batteries you can have 24/7/365 power ...
...
... even in the far north latitudes (where wind can easily make up the difference).
The only significant north latitude shown the map was Birmingham, which was 62%, not ">80%".
Re: (Score:2)
You believe 47's idiocy. You actually know NOTHING WHATSOFUCKINGEVER AT ALL.
Nope. Not jobs. In the US, there were 778,000 miners in the 1970s. As of 10 years ago, there were 78,000, one *TENTH* of what there had been. Because of the coal companies war on coal MINERS - the cola companies hatehatehate unions - they now do strip mines/mountaintop removal, and giant shovels and trucks.
So STFU.
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power. Makes electricity free from nuclear fission. Why dont we have it everywhere.
Because it's FAR from free. I'm very pro-nuclear, but we need to be honest about the pros (MANY) and the cons (several) of nuclear energy. One of the biggest problems is waste storage - instead of stashing it in an abandoned mineshaft in the Nevada desert (we can thank ex-senator Harry Reid for that), we store it on site. This is an expensive problem. This can be remedied with legislation, but unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government has a very difficult time passing laws, except on culture wa
Re: these (several) cons are HUGE (Score:2)
1.
Advancing nuclear, will also make it available to way more countries.
By that giving this tech to those.
Teaching those.
Building infrastructure and education to handle radioactive stuff.
From there it's only a small step sell stuff others can use for nuclear bombs.
By advocating nuclear, you also advocate giving atomic bombs to the whole world.
2.
risk of meltdown exists
newer nuclear is 100 x more secure
building 100 x more nuclear power plants / 100 x more secure equals the risk as of Tschernobyl and Fukushima
Re: these (several) cons are HUGE (Score:1)
1. Advancing nuclear, will also make it available to way more countries.
By that giving this tech to those.
Teaching those.
Building infrastructure and education to handle radioactive stuff.
From there it's only a small step sell stuff others can use for nuclear bombs.
By advocating nuclear, you also advocate giving atomic bombs to the whole world.
Bullshit. The difference between weapons-grade radioactive material and power-utility grade radioactive material is massive (like 90% enriched versus 6% enriched)
2. risk of meltdown exists
newer nuclear is 100 x more secure
building 100 x more nuclear power plants / 100 x more secure equals the risk as of Tschernobyl and Fukushima alike
natural desasters are on the rise, and thus the risk will get higher, on 100 fold places
Chernyobl was the result of a horribly compromised design, mis-managed.
Fukushima was because of earthquake and tsunami - perhaps avoiding construction reactors near the ocean mitigates those concerns?
Deaths from Chernyobl were massive, but Fukushima? There was what, one death from radiation?
3. nuclears need to be cooled
the planet gets hotter
nuclear power plants already had to be shut down as rivers got too hot in recent summers across europe
I tend to believe that the cooling issue can be worked-out
Re: (Score:2)
So called "green" tech like solar panels actually do produce vast quantities of incredibly toxic waste at every stage of their lifecycle that we have no viable way to deal with, unlike nuclear.
Sounds like copium to me. Nuclear fission has lost the PR war, the economic war, and the tech war, and now you're hoping you can bring it back from the dead by slagging the competition with baseless hyperbole. Well, good luck with that; but it sure looks like that race has already been called. I still have hope for nuclear fusion, FWIW.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the losses in economy and tech primarily are only because of the loss of the PR war.
nuclear is so expensive, because A everyone and their mother gets to cry NIMBY, eco groups are not held responsible for coming up with bullshit reasons why nuclear cannot be beuilt THERE and so forth. And because we haven't built nukes in quite some time, you'll have to expect overhead for companies regaining the know-how and fixing blunders.
The additional time all this takes adds to the interest on the building
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:1)
OK, let's put solar panels on every rooftop and just hope we have a useful recycling program in 10-15 years? That seems like a bad idea, come up with a recycling plan first, then advocate for a global rollout...
Re: (Score:2)
They actually don't.
That is american propaganda.
And this "whataboutism" is pretty pointless, as anyone with a some interest in it, can list you 100 steps in the production where nuclear fuel rod production, leave waste behind .... or simple coal digging.
Solar cell production is very similar to computer chip production, at least the early stages. Guess what: the "waste" is so valuable: it gets reused.
And the other stuff are acids, which are forbidden to be released into the environment. Even in China, facepa
Little toxic waste from solar array manufacturing (Score:2)
So called "green" tech like solar panels actually do produce vast quantities of incredibly toxic waste at every stage of their lifecycle that we have no viable way to deal with, unlike nuclear.
Incorrect. This is misinformation fed to you by think-tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry (and sometimes by paid nuclear-power lobbyists). The vast majority of solar arrays are single-crystal silicon, and the raw materials are sand, aluminum, and glass. None of these produce vast quantities of "incredibly toxic" waste to make or to recycle.
If you look at any of these claims that making solar arrays produces toxic waste, and drill down into what the solar array industry actually does, you'll find that
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:2)
I have 28 15 year old panels on my roof. Replacing them with more efficient ones is possible, but costly, not due to parts cost, but labor costs. I won't do it because it has negative ROI.
I did however add another 32 more efficient panels in recent years, filling every side of my roof. That had positive ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where they're made. Yeah, if your panels are manufactured in China, it's highly likely that there was a lot of pollution generate.
No, not even in China. Silicon array technology is way down the learning curve; they know how to neutralize the waste products (hint: neutralize HF with NaOH), and the process doesn't really produce toxic waste.
...
the greenies would want you to believe as they always base the calcs over the rated 20-year lifespan of a panel. And yeah, decent panels will give you 20 years of service.. But who the hell keeps panels for 20 years?
Pretty much everybody. You get a 20 to 25 year warranty on most solar arrays, and as much as a 40 year warranty on some of the top of the line arrays. Nobody throws them out after ten years; it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They last for 10-15 years before being replace
Actually, they last for 30 years at 80% capacity or better.
Why aren't they installed on every surface?
At least in America, it is illegal to install cost-effective solar panels.
Biden and Trump both agreed on high tariffs on solar, and American manufacturers have no incentive to be more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Imagine explaining solar (Score:2)
Politicians are getting in the way. While they officially want to reduce pollution they also do not want to eat too much in the profits of their corporate sponsors.
For example in Silicon Valley you need to get permission from PG&E (yes the Erin Brockovich foes) before you can be permitted to install panels. They can refuse if your capacity will be too high. Locally we are not allowed to cover the entire roof, as the firemen need room to walk on the roof. I get that one, safety first.
I'm considering putt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I might need a $300converter though, but I could increase my panel area to 10 sqm for a total price of $1300, which will ge
This is the way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every house should have solar panels. Forget the environmental impact of oil, look at all the screwed up things oil money funds. For that reason alone we need to switch to solar. Furthermore, if your house has solar .. that gives you more freedom. You're not subject to energy price fluctuations. And heck if you lost all your money you can still survive. I guess you'd need to figure out food I suppose (in theory can grow it indoors with solar energy), but maybe you can use the solar power to get on TikTok and get money for food.
Re: (Score:2)
You need local battery storage in order to have off-grid capability, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and different inverters. I've got a very small solar array, and the micro-inverter on it doesn't even work if it can't find the main power grid to sync to.
A battery will get you over some power grid outage, but not totally off-grid.
Re:This is the way. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Every house should have solar panels"
long before one gets around to putting them on small residential roofs, every large roof - big box stores, warehouses, schools, etc - and parking lots should be covered with solar panels
Re: (Score:2)
Every house should have solar panels.
Yes, but even if the energy they produce more than pays for themselves many homeowners lack the capital to install them or have other uses for that capital. If government created the means for people to finance them, then they could install them. There are a couple problems there. One is that there is a huge centralized energy industry with investors that make money building large generators and the infrastructure to deliver the power where it is used. So we provide government support for building those la
Re: (Score:2)
If government created the means for people to finance them, then they could install them. There are a couple problems there.
That is easy.
You just put high enough tariffs and if possible some extra taxes in the imported solar panels, and hand out that money with 0.5% interest to home owners, to buy solar panels.
SIMPLE!
Re: (Score:2)
This was already done, but without the government. Many companies would offer to install panels on your roof and guarantee an immediate decline in your electricity expenses. Basically they extended you a loan for the panels and you paid them back monthly with part of your el
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to be taking over though.
I think those solutions only really make sense if you intend to stay in your home. And they need to produce enough profit for the company in addition to any benefit the home owner gets. So the numbers work differently.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a social justice issue though. People getting solar panels to reduce their energy bills, and a divide opening between people who are already better off and can afford their own roof, vs people who have to rent and can at most put a temporary panel on a balcony or something.
For companies and schools it's much easier because they can get a commercial loan. Payback is guaranteed over a predictable period, they have assets to borrow against.
One of the great things about the solar revolution in China is tha
This is NOT the way. (Score:2)
"Every house should have solar panels" long before one gets around to putting them on small residential roofs, every large roof - big box stores, warehouses, schools, etc - and parking lots should be covered with solar panels
Remember when America started insisting that every home should have broadband internet?
20 years later, we taxpayers are still paying for that lie. Over and over again. How many more times do you think we’ll pay for it, because you fell for it the first time?
So, in answer to your statement, NO. That is not the way. Fuck that. Never again. Solar can start at the fucking human level this time. Greed can pay it’s own fucking way this time.
Re: (Score:3)
"Every house should have solar panels"
long before one gets around to putting them on small residential roofs, every large roof - big box stores, warehouses, schools, etc - and parking lots should be covered with solar panels
Yes and no, but before you do that realise there's a real problem to this when you do it at the scale you are talking about. Classical grid systems were designed to deliver power from a source, not receive it from what is nominally its consumer. Protection systems are designed with this in mind and they don't cope well when power flows from many sources the other way. Countries with high rooftop PV adoption have had to rush in and spend billions on infrastructure upgrades.
This is something you can plan well
Re: (Score:2)
Even without feed in to the grid, or feed in controlled remotely in a virtual power plant set-up, it's still well worth doing. With a battery that can be charged both from solar and from cheap off-peak electricity (in the UK some suppliers give you a special discounted rate if you let them control when your battery charges, and your EV).
In fact one supplier, Octopus, just launched a scheme where you can get a discounted lease on an EV that they can control the charging of. You tell them you need X% by time
Re: (Score:2)
We have the electrical grid already. Tiny installations like roof tops don't make sense. Each one has to have batteries, and an inverter. Worse, someone has to climb up there and clean the panels.
Create giant solar farms on empty, flat land, and use the grid to distribute the power.
Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and, California all have vast areas of desert that could be home to enormous photovoltaic installations.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the electrical grid already.
California is dumping solar because they can't get it to where the demand is. Upgrading the grid to deliver large amounts of power from large centrally located production is expensive. For the industry, that's one of its benefits. They make a profit on the power and they make a profit on the grid expenses associated with it.
Re: This is the way. (Score:5, Interesting)
The transition is challenging, traditionally we Belgians nag about it, as we definitely do not want to be great. But that does not stop us.
Went to the town hall last week. They did an info session about home batteries. The rules relaxed recently. Dude told us that Germany is actually ahead of us.
No guts, no glory. Cheers!
(To all the reasonable Americans, sorry, this taunt is not meant for you)
Re: (Score:2)
Home batteries are insanely cheap now. 15kWh for about 1,500 Euro as a kit, 2000 Euro assembled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Payback time was in the order of 10 years. So currently no big financial incentive to go that way.
They did show us that you could get the batteries smart. Charge batteries from the net when the price is negative, discharge to the net if price for electricity is high. You could even help in stabilizing the grid frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fogstar.co.uk/coll... [fogstar.co.uk]
Powerwalls are a massive rip off.
Re: (Score:2)
A Marstek 12kWh home battery can be had for under 1300EUR. You're permitted to do your own electrical wiring in much of Europe. The kit comes with all you need to connect it to the meterbox and instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey US... Belgium here. Solar panels everywhere. Sunny and windy? You het payed to consume electricity. Digital meters are rolled out everywhere, incentives are organized to install home batteries, ...
The transition is challenging, traditionally we Belgians nag about it, as we definitely do not want to be great. But that does not stop us.
Went to the town hall last week. They did an info session about home batteries. The rules relaxed recently. Dude told us that Germany is actually ahead of us.
Germany here: I severely doubt that Germany is ahead of you there. E.g. we don't get paid to consume electricity but instead have to pay a higher price because the producers of solar and wind energy get paid for the electricity they cannot sell, due to lacking demand but also due to lacking power line capacity from the north where most of the wind turbines are to the south where most of the industry is located.
Most of us also don't have the digital meters that would be required for being paid, because until
Re: (Score:2)
No digital meters in Germany yet? Damn, we made Belgium great. Must be doing something wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
Solar only works if you either have a huge roof or get a low energy heat pump for which you need a high level of insulation which may well cost six digits to achieve for existing houses.
Re: (Score:3)
You are totally wrong.
I've installed a really small solar array and on sunny days I produce more electricity than I use. I'm sure it'll be a lot less in winter. BUT - I have a wood-burning heater which needs only a bit of electrical power for its control system. I'm pretty sure I can produce enough of that even in winter. So in theory, with the addition of a battery to cover the night, I could survive even if the power grid went down for an extended time.
Solar as a provider of independence doesn't mean ever
Re: (Score:2)
If it cannot give you complete independence in some area - energy, heating or electric car - its attractiveness is rather diminished.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? 100% is better than 99% is better than 90% etc. But 90% is better than 0%, too. So why be so binary? Being largely off-grid is still good, even if not as good as being totally off-grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Every house should have solar panels.
the vast majority of the population in the world doesn't live in "houses", but in apartment buildings in dense cities with wildly varying exposure to sunlight. in many regions in the world catching sunlight does demand considerable available surface. the roofs of these buildings may not be big enough to provide for the many families that can be stuffed into them, and it isn't an individual choice and operation anymore. so not so simple, although i agree with your bottom line. btw solar farms are a thing but
Re: (Score:2)
Every house should have solar panels.
yep.
I used to have solar in the first house I built, and we had enough capacity to have the AC on pretty much as much as we wanted, and I still fed back to the grid, and got credit from the electricity distributor each quarter.
Stupid Regulations (Score:2)
There are stupid regulations in our neighborhood holding us back. I'd rather not pay for a battery pack, just the panels. It would cost us roughly half as much. But we also want to use our OWN power if the grid goes down, which it does often, but regulations forbid that: we must buy a battery pack to have that ability.
I realize a battery pack gives us off-hour power if the grid goes down, but since it's only a spare, we don't care that it would only work during the day. It would be enough to keep our food f
Re: (Score:2)
* For some value of reliable
Re: Stupid Regulations (Score:2)
I know there's an argument for it's my right to feed s***** power into my own house if I want to. However a lot of people with that mentality are then going to blame others when various appliances in their home fail prematurel
Re: (Score:2)
Every house should have solar panels. Forget the environmental impact of oil, look at all the screwed up things oil money funds. For that reason alone we need to switch to solar. Furthermore, if your house has solar .. that gives you more freedom. You're not subject to energy price fluctuations. And heck if you lost all your money you can still survive. I guess you'd need to figure out food I suppose (in theory can grow it indoors with solar energy), but maybe you can use the solar power to get on TikTok and get money for food.
That is *SUCH* a nerd thing to say. Normal person: "Need food. Could plant a garden outside." Nerd: "Install solar so I can grow food inside."
Three times more power than the US (Score:1)
Ignoring the solar fraction, note China's total generating capacity: 3.61TW
According to Wikipedia, total capacity for the US is 1.28TW. For the EU it's 1.08TW.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't really ignore the solar fraction, though, or the also-large wind fraction; even in 2023, the two made up about 43% of total capacity. Those two chunks are counted as nameplate capacities rather than typical output, and typical capacity factors are 15-25% for solar and 20-40% for wind. That means the actual generation is a lot less than 3.61 TW, almost certainly less than 3 TW, and possibly less than 2.5 TW. The US is a lot less affected by those factors (see, for example, https://www.eia.gov/en [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. A better measure is annual TWh. Here are the 2023 numbers.
China: 9,456 TWh (not including the extra 2024-25 capacity mentioned in the article)
US: 4,254 TWh
EU: 2,824 TWh (in 2022, and falling apparently)
Re: (Score:1)
There's also 800 million people more so what is your point exactly?
They are also the worlds largest polluter, by a fucking landslide. USA and EU do not even come CLOSE.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also 800 million people more so what is your point exactly?
They are also the worlds largest polluter, by a fucking landslide. USA and EU do not even come CLOSE.
But the US is working on it. :-(
And don't forget: China produces lots of goods that are sold world wide. A lot more than the EU or US. So it's no wonder that they need more power and generate more pollution.
3.61 TW? ! (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like someone's planning on installing an Nvidia 5090 !
Re: (Score:2)
Good joke, though the story could have generated more.
Re: (Score:2)
as always... (Score:1)
Rooftop solar PV backfeeding being discouraged? (Score:2, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice the following?
Another new rule, effective May 1, made connecting rooftop panels to the grid more difficult.
Why would China discourage rooftop solar PV if they are in dire need of more electricity?
I have a guess, it is really hard for an electrical grid built to distribute energy from large centralized points out to take in energy from sources that are small and distributed. I've seen this reaction before in Hawaii, Florida, and other places in the USA. That doesn't get reported as widely because there's more clicks and eyeballs with good news on solar power than bad news on
Thanks for the infrastructure, America! (Score:2)
One reason they're able to do this is because the US effectively subsidized the manufacturing infrastructure.
Trump Protect Us! (Score:2)
Good thing we have a wise and benevolent leader to protect us from following the Chinese into the destruction of true Capitalism. ...sigh.