Re:World passes 1TW of solar installations
by mateo1 on Monday March 21, 2022 @07:12PM
(#30760946)
The fact that they never mention capacity factors is all you need to know about the state of reporting on renewables. Solar is 1.3% of the US energy mix and for good reason. Come over to europe if you want a glimpse of what is coming in the post-fossil fuel world. Energy poverty and deindustrialization leading to good old general poverty. Personally I can't believe the green lobby is still going strong while we're facing the worst energy crisis we had in decades.
Re:World passes 1TW of solar installations
by voisin on Monday March 21, 2022 @07:33PM
(#30761101)
Can you please expand on this? Is any of your comment explained by pointing that many European countries have shuttered nuclear plants, which presumably has led to increased energy prices but unrelated to the focus on renewables?
Re:World passes 1TW of solar installations
by mateo1 on Monday March 21, 2022 @08:07PM
(#30761357)
The comment is explained by a €50-100/MWh carbon tax. Nuclear is sometimes necessary but still too expensive. Imported gas was chosen as a "green" alternative while hoping and dreaming a financially feasible energy source would come along. Totally surprisingly, it didn't. Lots of voters still oppose fracking, even when it's done in the middle of north sea. Europe won't see any further economic development until this insanity is over. You simply can't compete with countries that retained rational energy policies, like China or the US.
135 GW is the total electricity production in France in 2009.
Of which 80.1% were from nuclear power, or 108 GW.
The situation has worsened, nowadays we only have 70% of nuclear power, ie. 61 GW.
This is only the power installed. In terms of energy produced, it's even worse. At least, the 61 GW can produce almost 24h/24h ie. 1464 GWh of energy, while the solar panels work at best half the time, and actually much less, and a lot of their energy is also lost in the transformation required (storage in battery, building and recycling the batteries, etc). That may be acceptable for mobile applications, but to power factories, or static computers, this is a waste.
But my point is that is far from enough to replace carbon based energies, and that we're too late to build the number of nuclear plant that would be needed world wide.
We are only 8 doublings away from 51.2TW/year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Wri...
With a 10% cost reduction after each doubling, price per TW should be (0.9)^6 = 43% of today.
Sounds encouraging to me.
If a doubling happens every 2 years, then by 2038, we will be installing 51.2TW/year.
Maybe too late to stop global warming?
For comparison, the world currently consumes 24,000 TWh of electricity per year.
Indeed, at the current doubling rate we are less than a decade from producing more electricity from solar than today’s total electricity consumption.
France has 61 TW of nuclear power, and this covers only 35% of only France energy needs!!!
Imagine how much more solar installations will be needed to cover the energy needs of the world!
I used the data from: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... which dates from 2019, and has become worse than the data from wikipedia that dates from 2009.
135 GW is the total electricity production in France in 2009. Of which 80.1% were from nuclear power, or 108 GW.
The situation has worsened, nowadays we only have 70% of nuclear power, ie. 61 GW.
This is only the power installed. In terms of energy produced, it's even worse. At least, the 61 GW can produce almost 24h/24h ie. 1464 GWh of energy, while the solar panels work at best half the time, and actually much less, and a lot of their energy is also lost in the transformation required (storage in battery, building and recycling the batteries, etc). That may be acceptable for mobile applications, but to power factories, or static computers, this is a waste.
But my point is that is far from enough to replace carbon based energies, and that we're too late to build the number of nuclear plant that would be needed world wide.