Hacker News Reader

Comment by embedding-shape | Hacker News Reader

> Global solar capacity increased by 510 GW to 2,383 GW, up 27% year on year, while wind added a record 159 GW to reach 1,291 GW, an increase of 14%. By comparison, installed nuclear capacity rose by just 1.5 GW to 399.5 GW, while operating nuclear capacity declined by 0.5 GW to 368.6 GW.

How much of all of that is China vs the rest of world? They seem to just in the last decade or two absolutely exploded when it comes to solar and other renewable energy sources.

View on HN

China is around half that capacity. Asia represents 3/4 of new capacity.

With this being said, Australia, Netherlands and Germany are leading in solar capacity per capita according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country

Which is quite surprising, because on an irradiance map[0] The Netherlands and Germany have some of the worst per-year solar output in the world - an installation in the Mojave Desert would produce literally twice the amount of power with the same panels! And especially The Netherlands doesn't exactly have a lot of empty land either.

If those two are at the top, it means most of the others aren't even trying.

[0]: https://globalsolaratlas.info/

Looking at yearly solar irradiation actually underplays the disadvantage we have in northern Europe in terms of PV. If all we had to do is built twice the capacity that would be one thing but our winters are quite dark, making PV energy generation almost negible around the winter solstice. Whatever generation capacity we can displace in the summer we still have to keep around to make up the shortfall in December. I love when I see solar panels here but rationally speaking Germany and the Netherlands should be among the late adopters.

I mean that is why the EU is so gung ho on increasing cross border transmission capacity

With the current energy situation, less gas used for power plants in the summer is more than can go into storage facilities for the winter.

A big part of it is that The Netherlands has quite generous subsidies for roof solar panels on your home: you may subtract total power delivered to the grid from total power consumed when calculating your yearly electricity bill. This effectively means you can use excess solar generated during summer months to reduce your winter electricity bill, nullifying one of the biggest downsides of PV (intermittent generation).

The subsidy is set to expire next year, however. Although it was extremely successful in getting People to install roof solar, it is a severe adverse incentive for home battery systems (why store your generated power in a battery when you can give it to the grid and get it 100% back for free whenever), and it is making electricity more expensive for those who cannot install solar.

Netherlands is mostly rooftop solar, which is easy and cheap to install there. No permitting required, previous net metering policies gave a very predictable ROI and cost is very reasonable: say 3k eur for 8 panels including installation, that would get you like 3000kwh/year. Panels would be just over 2k, the crew to get it done like 600-800 euros. Electricity ain't electricity cheap there to the point the ROI would be just a couple years with the net metering. You'd be stupid not to get it at that point and a few thousand bucks is a very feasible investment for most people without having to resort to financing.

I live in Texas now where there's a lot more sun and a lot more electricity usage (though it's cheaper per kwh). Panels and inverters are a significant percentage more expensive due to tariffs and stuff, but that's not even the biggest cost driver. It's the permitting and installation costs that make it so so so much more expensive. If I could get a bunch of panels on my roof for $5k, they'd be there already. But typical costs I'm seeing is low five figures which is well beyond my appetite or electricity costs.

Crazy how much government can influence our choices via taxes and permit rules!

Clean coal, that's the future kids - America

That’s why they need above average per capita instal.

Yes, this is honestly a huge problem. The US isn't even trying.

Why try when you have shale oil and gas?

But look on the bright side solar is not complicated. If America ever changes it's policies they can switch pretty fast.

inverter cost scales with energy production not panel area, panels are cheap, and there are a bunch of other fixed costs or energy scaling costs that aren't much affected by panel area

in other words, local solar irradiance while not of no concern is very often overstated as a concern. the part of the cost which is related to panel count isn't particularly dominant especially in areas with high energy and labor costs

If I understand correctly, most solar panels operating optimally around 77F,25C. They decrease in efficiency at higher temperatures. "For every degree Celsius above 25°C, a solar panel’s efficiency typically drops by about 0.3% to 0.5%, depending on the specific panel." So, when it gets around 38C that's maybe 6% less efficient. Not a huge decrease, but something to consider when building your desert solar farm.

https://www.solar-secure.com.au/blog/balancing-heat-and-effi...

They also produce a lot of electric vehicles.

They will probably end up less dependent on oil which is a good thing for them, considering the conflicts this causes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com