China added 33.66 Gigawatts of new solar PV in Q1 - Total 327.4 GW cumulative installed PV capacity

[Caribbeans]

PV-Magazine | Vincent Shaw | April 26, 2023

China reached 327.4 GW cumulative installed PV capacity at the end of March, according to new figures from the National Energy Administration (NEA).
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/04/26/china-added-33-3-gw-of-new-pv-in-q1/

~100 GW here and a 100 GW there and pretty soon you're talking real scale...

The amount of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant depends on the size of the plant and the type of reactor used. Generally speaking, a single large nuclear power plant can generate up to a few thousand megawatts of electricity. SOURCE

The Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona is the largest nuclear power plant in the United States with three reactors and a total net summer electricity generating capacity of about 3,937 MW. (3.9 GW)

"Worthless"? You decide

[Alexander Of Assyria]

1. That's a solar farm!? Remarkable.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. 327 GW solar total is equal to 90 Palo Verde nuclear power plants?

[drray23]

3. typical nuclear reactors are around 1.3 GW each.

A power plant may have 2 or 3. So yes, its about 90 nuclear power plants with 3 reactors each.
Now of course it does not run 24/7. I am assuming the chinese are not buiding gigantic battery storage facilities to store that. Its probably going to be used to supply a significant part of the daily usage and supplemented by something else.

Hopefully, China significantly reduces the use of coal for the bulk of its production which is what they are doing now.

[Finishline42]

4. According to Google...

China's energy storage capacity accounted for 22% of global installed capacity, reaching 46.1 GW in 2021 [4]. Of these, 39.8 GW is used in pumped-storage hydropower (PSH), which is the most widely used storage technology.

Tesla is building a Megapack plant in China which I would guess most of the output will stay in China.

[NickB79]

5. People always forget capacity factors (around 30% of nameplate for solar)

Last edited Sat Apr 29, 2023, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

That's around 100 GW of actual production, so 35 Palo Verde's.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

6. Isn't this article about output, not capacity factor? Output is the orange to orange comparison.

[NickB79]

7. No, it specifically says PV capacity in the article

Capacity isn't real-world output. Capacity is what the panels produce in a perfect environment.

A general approximation is nameplate capacity x 30% capacity factor to estimate real-world output. That's to account for clouds, rain, dust, and of course, night.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Ok, so 35 large scale nuclear plants, 105 reactors...less nuclear PV capacity. 95% PVC.

[Finishline42]

9. That's still a lot

Plus they added over 10% of that total in the 1st Q of this year!

[NickB79]

10. Yes it is. nt

[NNadir]

13. That's a lot of coal that has to be burned to back this useless junk up as well.

Of course, solar and wind worshippers don't give a shit about coal, climate change or air pollution, so I don't expect the coal burned to back this soon to be electronic waste up matters at all to them.

Every time a dangerous fossil fuel plant is forced to start and restart, energy is wasted as the steam generators recharge.

But not giving a shit about climate change, or air pollution deaths - which happen to have the highest tolls in China - solar and wind hawkers have nothing to say about fossil fuel plants.

They're just happy that clean and reliable plants - of which there are only one type - aren't built. Apparently this sort loves dirty air.

By the way, does anyone know what happens to the effectiveness of solar crap not only from things like the Staebler-Wronsky effect, but from the deposits of soot and coal ash on their surfaces?

Would anyone care to look it up?

No? Solar and wind carny hawking people don't bother with looking things up?

Why am I not surprised?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

14. Who doesn't love Pandas?? In a solar array it's as imaginative as it is progressive!

[NNadir]

15. There's nothing "imaginative" or "progressive" about being reactionary.

Reliance on the weather for energy was abandoned in the 19th century.

There was a reason for it. And I note there were about 5 or 6 billion fewer people on the planet then.

The fucking planet is on fire. Yesterday we saw the first daily reading at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory over 425 ppm reported.

April 28: 425.01 ppm
April 27: 424.58 ppm
April 26: 424.34 ppm
April 25: 424.78 ppm
April 24: 423.96 ppm
Last Updated: April 29, 2023

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

And still the coal/hydrogen/gas/battery/solar goofballs carry on with sick jokes.

Nero had nothing on them.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

16. Humour is an excellent medicine, just trying to provide some. Why always with the gloom?

[NNadir]

12. The 30% capacity factor is unrealistically high, it's roughly 20%, about 23% in California, a desert

I would suggest looking at data. It's available on the internet if one looks.

The solar junk is unreliable; it therefore requires redundant systems, almost all of which are dirty fossil fuels, and therefore any comparison with reliable energy is specious.

This unreliability makes solar energy exceedingly dirty and it thus cannot be compared to clean nuclear energy.

Moreover, nuclear plants are now understood to be operable for periods of at least 80 years, possibly more with regular refurbishment and proper maintainence.

On every damned grid in the world, demand peaks in the late afternoon and early evening, so the real effect of the solar junk is simply to erode the economic viability of reliable plants, screwing the poor, raising energy poverty, and creating vast stretches of electronic waste spread over.

It is nonsense to compare solar junk with nuclear plants, but I do note that the interest of the mindless fucks supporting this assault on the future of humanity, so called "renewable energy" don't care about how many climate driving gas, coal and oil plants they compare to, because they realize their unsustainable junk depends on continued access to gas, coal and oil.

It's not a lot of energy. It's trivial energy.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

17. Trillions of dollars of investment in solar wind etc... all these governments and businesses are

so wrong?

Betting their scientists did a ton more research than you or I on the entire subject and there is clearly a world wide consensus.

Of course there will always be detractors., even experts in one of the many interconnected scientific fields may disagree with the overwhelming consensus…in example there are still scientists who sincerely believe Covid was a hoax!

One is Floridas Chief Physician!

[NNadir]

11. One of the big lies that supports this useless enterprise, the solar fantasy, is to deliberately...

...mix power units with energy units, without accounting for the capacity utilization.

Solar plants typically have about 20% capacity utilization, and part, only part, of the reason that the solar industry is so dirty is the requirement for redundant systems. Nuclear plants with capacity utilization less than 90% are poor performers, but most of them represent the most reliable energy systems on the planet.

Comparing useless unreliable junk that will be electronic waste in 20 to 25 years, to reliable and cleaner energy produced by nuclear plants designed now to last 80 years is a form of pernicious ignorance that is killing the planet.

Of course, the raison d'etre for the solar industry has been to attack nuclear energy; it was never about environmental issues.

The rate of rise in the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, is accelerating, even after the squandering of trillions of dollars, 3.3319 trillion dollars (the fourth digit after the decimal represents 900 million dollars) on solar and wind junk, all to be landfill before today's toddlers graduate from college. Source: UNEP Bloomberg Frankfurt School Investment in Renewable Energy 2000. (Fig 42, page 62)

As of this morning, preliminary data, we're over 424 ppm, less than 10 years after we first saw 400 ppm.

Week beginning on April 23, 2023: 424.38 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 420.19 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 399.32 ppm
Last updated: April 29, 2023

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

None of this will dissuade energy storage morons, battery morons, or worse, hydrogen morons, from not giving a shit about the environment as they promote unsustainable materialist consumer, if popular, junk, of course; it never has and it never will.

The reason for us being at 424 ppm less than 10 years after we first saw 400 ppm, it is the embrace of deliberate lies, only one of which is the deliberate confusion between units of power and units of energy which should cause even a high school student to fail a science test and the very pernicious attempt to compare unreliable dirty energy (solar) with clean energy (nuclear). Such comparisons are insipid.

[jpak]

18. Please stop with the "percent talk"

It's ignorant.

Yup