Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
44. Renewables are faster, safer and cheaper
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:10 AM
Mar 2013

22 months ago:

Will China’s 50 GW goal create a solar bubble? No.
In fact, the dramatic scaling of solar manufacturing capacity is just what’s needed to keeps costs dropping

By Stephen Lacey on May 12, 2011

The renewable energy industry is central to addressing many national problems: Climate change, national security, and job growth. Its biggest international challenge is the Green Giant – the competition from China’s full-court press into clean energy.

Seemingly every week there’s another story about how China is upping the U.S. in the race to develop clean energy. This week’s news is in the solar sector, where Chinese officials say they plan to deploy 50 GW of cumulative capacity in the country by 2020. China only has about 1 GW of solar PV installed today (and no concentrated solar thermal power). But assuming it can meet those targets and continue scaling manufacturing (the country currently holds 57% of global solar cell manufacturing in the world), China is poised to become a vertically-integrated solar leader – not just an exporter of technology.

This story on the Forbes blog seems to have misunderstood the implications of China’s strategy:

“The epic expansion planned for the latter part of this decade may create the world’s first solar-energy bubble. The existing solar supply chain is likely too shallow to sustain growth on this scale. Unless the industry develops scalable infrastructure over the next four years, China’s planned installation of 8 GWs of solar capacity annually between 2015 and 2020 is likely to create severe bottlenecks in the solar supply chain. These bottlenecks could radically inflate the price of basic materials like silicon and create labor shortages that would affect the costs of manufacturing solar modules, designing and installing new solar systems and operating and maintaining already installed systems.”


So are we really going to see a solar energy bubble? That’s extremely unlikely, says Shayle Kann, a leading solar analyst with GTM Research.

“It’s actually nothing crazy,” he says. “I have a hard time seeing this creating a global undersupply – we’ll have 50 GW of module manufacturing capacity by the end of this year. The goal is doable.”

That’s a pretty amazing feat....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/12/208083/will-china-create-a-solar-bubble-not-going-to-happen/


And from the beginning of Feb:
China increases solar target by 67% – yet again

For the fourth time in two years China has increased its solar energy target (- from) 21GW by 2015 to 35GW.

Chinese newspaper The Economic Times reported Shi Lishan, Deputy Director of the Renewable Energy Office of the National Energy Administration (NEA), said, “The target of 35 GW has been confirmed, and will soon be announced.

“The reason for making the adjustment is that the PV industry has been developing very quickly.”

In the last ten years, China’s solar PV cumulative installed capacity has already grown by 67 times the average annual growth...
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/china_increases_solar_target_by_67_yet_again
It's going to happen a lot sooner in Alaska Tempest Mar 2013 #1
It's already started. progressoid Mar 2013 #2
Where is that photo from? davidthegnome Mar 2013 #5
The license plate is yellow Bainbridge Bear Mar 2013 #9
It is Alaska Tempest Mar 2013 #32
That one is from Alaska. Siberia is also showing the effects of melting "perma"frost. progressoid Mar 2013 #15
You may have meant dipsydoodle Mar 2013 #17
Doh! progressoid Mar 2013 #19
Thanks. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #25
If they predict 2050 Mojorabbit Mar 2013 #3
Agree. wtmusic Mar 2013 #4
Glad I'll be dead Pharaoh Mar 2013 #6
I know what you mean. I've said "I'm glad I'm old" to myself about a hundred times in the past Nay Mar 2013 #50
Is there REALLY anything we can do? Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #7
yes, we can do something RILib Mar 2013 #16
Obama/Whitehouse RILib Mar 2013 #18
Gops in Congress stopped the President...eom Kolesar Mar 2013 #26
what was that again? RILib Mar 2013 #45
Mr Obtuse just started researching the issue yesterday...eom Kolesar Mar 2013 #47
You made one minor error Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #27
Do you have anything except your opinion to support that? kristopher Mar 2013 #29
I do actually Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #33
So the answer is no, you have nothing to support your belief. kristopher Mar 2013 #35
Renewables are below 5%, so clearly these experts are wrong Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #37
You use no data and poor reasoning to support your position kristopher Mar 2013 #43
When we're grabbing for nuclear-- Who is 'We'? cprise Mar 2013 #36
I believe I said in my original post (on this topic) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #38
So you think the US govt should own and operate Iran's power plants? n/t cprise Mar 2013 #57
I was talking about America. Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #58
Government can't do it any better kristopher Mar 2013 #60
Yeah, you are probably correct about that (cont) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #61
That means your definition of "safe" is flawed. kristopher Mar 2013 #62
Clearly. n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #63
There are nuclear power plants under construction now that will never be finished. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #51
One assessment says that if we built a nuclear plant every week wtmusic Mar 2013 #39
So build two a week :) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #40
That could be done, too. wtmusic Mar 2013 #41
Renewables are faster, safer and cheaper kristopher Mar 2013 #44
1700 1GWe reactors only equals 1/3 of global electric supply kristopher Mar 2013 #46
Thank you. Excellent post. Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #48
No one seriously uses LWRs in these scenerios. joshcryer Mar 2013 #56
What source can you point to that validates your statement regarding the need for nuclear? kristopher Mar 2013 #31
See my post above yours n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #34
Yes, there are things we COULD do, but our political-economic system will probably prevent action DLnyc Mar 2013 #21
Setting all that aside... Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #28
You aren't paying attention... kristopher Mar 2013 #30
But Janitor Jesus will return to clean up our mess and make a paradise Motown_Johnny Mar 2013 #8
and that is why they do nothing sadly glinda Mar 2013 #11
I'll likely be gone by then, but my boyfriend will be in the prime of his life MNBrewer Mar 2013 #10
I know what you mean. I will most likely be gone by then but I am worried about the grandkids. southernyankeebelle Mar 2013 #14
Like an SF novel, minus the entertainment. nt caseymoz Mar 2013 #12
k&r nt limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #13
2050? XemaSab Mar 2013 #20
The IPCC made some predictions in 1990 that were early wtmusic Mar 2013 #22
Uh . . . . hatrack Mar 2013 #49
Referring to global temperature. wtmusic Mar 2013 #52
I'm not referring to global temperature averages, or to IPCC's past perceived failures hatrack Mar 2013 #53
Thanks. joshcryer Mar 2013 #55
That is one bloody scary graph... truebrit71 Mar 2013 #59
Is your thinking then... davidthegnome Mar 2013 #23
It's ALWAYS XemaSab Mar 2013 #24
+1000! FirstLight Mar 2013 #42
+1 joshcryer Mar 2013 #54
The Permafrost Gun is Already smoking, ... CRH Mar 2013 #64
+1 kristopher Mar 2013 #65
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The permafrost gun is pre...»Reply #44