Asia Report: China Takes Sharp Turn in Push for Solar Energy

Renewable Energy World Editors
December 19, 2011 | 32 Comments

Facing a manufacturing overcapacity and a growing need for clean energy, China announced a plan that could have impacts on both fronts.

To learn more what this would mean for China's domestic solar prospects, we turned to Chris Brown, North America general manager of Asia Cleantech Gateway. Below is how he sees the current market and the challenges ahead.

China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) last week announced it is aiming for the country’s installed solar power generating capacity to reach 15 GW by 2015. This is a 50 percent increase from its previous plan.

This new target marks a new urgency in China’s attempts to create a domestic solar market. Right now China’s production capacity is about 30 to 40 GW. Yet, for this year, China’s market size is about 2 GW. Being an exporter of solar modules while their domestic energy needs are so serious has been a sore spot to Beijing for the last five or six years.

The current PV overcapacity has exacerbated the situation and Beijing is responding with new urgency. China sees becoming a major consumer of the solar products as the best way to address the problem.

How successful China will be developing its solar market is debatable but the intention, focus and allocation of funds is clear. In 2011, China has addressed two of the key needs to creating a strong domestic market — a unified feed-in tariff and a transmission infrastructure that can handle renewable energy.

In July, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced its plans to create a unified, nation-wide feed-in tariff. There will be problems implementing the FiT. The proposed rate is nowhere near enough for PV projects in many parts of the country.

As part of new solar capacity target plan, the NEA will seek international help in building new a transmission infrastructure. It acknowledged that much of the problem with getting the utility-level renewable energy projects connected to the grid has been a lack of engineering expertise.

Foreign cleantech investment and technological expertise have been welcome but management less so. Allowing foreigners working with Chinese engineers on building new UHV lines shows a new openness and honesty in addressing the transmission problem.

China’s energy market is disjointed and implementing nation-wide renewable energy policy is difficult. Last week’s new solar target, however, is another indication that Beijing is urgently working to become a major consumer of its own solar products.

U.S.-CHINA TRADE DISPUTE

Possible Probe of Chinese Panel Makers: An American senator wants an investigation into how major Chinese solar panel makers were able to access American capital markets and raise billions of dollars.

Growing Complexity of Trade Dispute: Perhaps the biggest question in this standoff is, "Who has more to lose?" China could lose access to the growing U.S. market, but both India and China itself could more than fill the void.

Striking Balance: The global solar industry benefits from healthy competition between the United States and China.

Recent Dispute History: Reuters lists the recent industry trade disputes between the U.S. and China regarding renewable energy and beyond.

IN THE NEWS

Bio Flight From Thailand: Thai Airways has joined the aviation biofuels race with plans to launch what it says is Asia’s first all-biofuel commercial flight on Dec. 22.

Small Hydro in China: Yichang's small hydropower agency has awarded contracts worth $52.8 million to four Chinese groups to build 11 small hydroelectric projects in China's Hubei Province.

Next-Generation Wind: Korea has signed a contract for 2,500 MW of offshore wind power from jet-like next-generation turbines. The agreement is pending government testing.

Solar Data Project: Telecom carrier Softbank Corp. has begun generating electricity at its solar power test plant in Japan's northernmost main island of Hokkaido to collect data on power generation efficiency and antisnow measures. The company expects the data to be used by companies interested in solar power generation.

Deal for Indonesia Geothermal Plant: Marubeni Corp. and Toshiba Corp. of Japan won an order to build a 55-megawatt geothermal plant from Indonesia’s PT Geo Dipa Energi. The plant, to be built in the suburbs of Bandung southeast of Jakarta, will start operating in 2014.

A DEEPER LOOK

Focus on Renewable Energy Is Vital: An energy expert and research scholar from India details the growing importance of renewable energy as his nation looks to further develop its economy.

In India, Solar Power Cheaper Than Diesel: An inside look at India as an emerging solar player and the effect that is expected to have on the nation’s diesel generator industry.

PV Projects Big and Small: PV installations in Tibet and Shenzhen are two of the accomplishments featured by the editors of Photovoltaics World.

Japan Traders Eye $200 Billion Power Market: As Japan continues to reconsider its energy future, among the major considerations is a potential revamping of the power structure itself.

A Mining Monopoly: China’s dominant grip of rare earth minerals is felt in nearly every high-tech sector, including renewable energy.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Executive Q&A

“The Indian market accounts for 20 percent of our global sales and we see it going up to at least 35 percent next year. There is increasing competition from low-cost Chinese machines and also the concern on incentives and subsidies. The market has not really recovered from the financial crisis of 2008 and there is over-supply. This has not affected India that much. But because of oversupply, there has been a big squeeze on margins globally.”
— Ramesh Kymal, Gamesa Wind Turbines

HAVE YOUR SAY

If you are an industry expert and would like to be a contributor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, please contact us at editor@renewableenergyworld.com so we can show you how to get started.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

32 Comments

Gerry Wootton
January 2, 2012

Nuclear subs are great. They solve a basic problem of energy density and ability to produce power without 'breathing'. Luckily, they are swimming in coolant. On the other hand, there is a disturbing percentage of them sitting on the bottom; apparently, reliability isn't all it's cracked up to be. This is totally irrelevant: the design problem for powering a submarine has little in common with powering the grid.

Nuclear power plants have substantial impact on the environment. Emissions of radioactive materials including volatiles are not inconsequential. The level of radioactivity in Lake Huron (a moderately large body of water) have more than doubled due to the presence of nuclear power plants. In some areas, there are advisories on fish consumption related to this. A bigger impact is on the acquatic ecosystems of the nearby body of water used for cooling.In Lake Huron the entire structure of the water column and currents is modified by massive heat input. The environmental impact where a river is used is greater - a serious instance of local warming.

Michael V. Caldwell
December 29, 2011

December 29, 2011
"WHEN SOLAR ENERGY IS DONE RIGHT IT IS AS GOOD AS GOLD"

NOW WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO FOLLOW THIS DREAM BELOW & MAKE IT A REALITY ! ! !

INVESTING IN AMERICA" "WHEN YOU INVEST IN AMERICA YOU INVEST IN YOUR CHILDREN'S
FUTURE"

"INVEST IN A LARGE PROJECT THAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE FUTURE"
Similar to this idea; In past history when the USA needed a Moral Boost to our
Country we built such things as; The Largest Bridges, Dams, Statue Of Liberty,
Worlds Largest Futuristic Fair, Landed on the Moon etc.

It is overdue for us and time for us to build the Largest & Best Futuristic
CITY IN THE WORLD, using ALL

OF OUR CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGY AND ALL OF CHINA'S, GERMANY, RUSSIA and all other

Countries CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGY and BEYOND ALL OTHERS ! !

Find a location in the USA somewhere that has the space for our "FUTURE CITY
PROJECT"

Where Our Future City will Utilize all of the Newest and Cutting edge combined
technology in the world to build our City using entirely GREEN energy with ZERO
POLLUTION ! ! !

Our City Could Have A NEW VERSION OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, Holding
the torch in one hand and our GREEN PLANET EARTH in her other hand, her head
raised high looking Up at the sky.

This would make a GREAT FILM & Could be based
on a True Story with the help of A TEAM OF BIG MONEY INVESTORS ! ! !

Use your Imagination and think how; GREAT THIS WOULD BE FOR AMERICA & OUR
ECONOMY ! ! "

COULD BE A HISTORICAL EVENT IN OUR HISTORY BOOKS FOR OUR NEXT GENERATION TO
FOLLOW" "DREAM BIG...DO BIG"

Thank You, Respectfully, Michael V. Caldwell, Proud
American Inventor/Dreamer..Dream Big..Do Big ! ! !

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
December 24, 2011

Yes. China has ambitious plans for Solar Energy. Already China is world leader in Wind Energy.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Rod Adams
December 22, 2011

@rich_barbarics

In the 1950s, the basic physical phenomenon that produces the heat used in nuclear plants was brand new - humans did not even know that a self sustaining chain reaction was possible until they developed atomic theories and discovered particles like the neutron in the 1930s. People like Fermi and Szilard then put the very first demonstration system in the world into operation on December 2, 1942.

By 1957, we were propelling submarines and generating large quantities of commercial electricity, but the systems were primitive and based on very early knowledge.

In contrast, humans have known that there was energy in the sun and wind for several tens of millennia, but the smart ones that study science were never very satisfied with using large collectors to capture uncontrollable, diffuse and unreliable power systems.

I am all for distributed generation, but I want mine in a form that can operate 24 x 7 without any backup and without any wires coming to my house. What I want is something similar to the plant that my team and I operated for several years in the 1980s. That system powered a 9,000 ton submarine for 14 years on a mass of fuel that weighed only a little bit more than my body weight.

We did not have any wires going to our boat and our technology was available for construction when the ship was built in 1962. A tiny version of that system was installed into an ice tunnel in Greenland in the same year. That project was initially funded in 1961 but it was up and running in one of the most remote areas in the world just 18 months later.

Have fun playing with your toys and dreams. Nuclear fission energy can solve a lot of the world's real challenges. I want to use the best available tools, not something like wind or solar energy that has been found inadequate by several generations of really bright scientists and engineers.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

Rich Barbarics
December 22, 2011

Nuclear may have been the USA generation answer in the 1950's and 60's but now self and distributed generation is. Although nuclear plants are large producers, they are too expensive and we still haven't made Yucca Mtn work after 20 years+ of chatter. We need to get out of the 100 year old utility model for electric power. Solar, various heat pumps, small wind, better hydrolizers for H2 fuel cells will get us there - let's look forward instead of backward. The Chinese need to continue growth in their home market to support their population getting off the farms and into the cities or else the leaders know they will be ousted. There is overcapacity now but it will even get worse since those manufacturing jobs are needed politically. As I see it, we may not be thinking low enough at $ 1 per watt solar PV - think about 1 Yuan per watt - now THAT is a wild thought. As they evolve to the world's new reserve currency, what outsiders say about them won't make much difference to their way of thinking. The solar dumping case is a flyspeck nuisance to them but great for our lawyers and politicians.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz
December 21, 2011

@ChrisRobertBrown

Thank you for that background. If the "Energy Research Institute" is not independent, that would make this particular position closer to an official Chinese government plan. And they might still be right.

The EU 2050 roadmap just published last week projected solar PV at 2678 Euro per kWh in 2020. Meanwhile in the real world, it was down to 2360 on average in Germany for small home installations already in October. The solar PV costs are dropping so rapidly their 2020 prediction was already surpassed by a substantial amount when they got around to publishing their report.

@GeraldR

I agree with your point. For one, all those shiny new nuclear plants in China won't help anyone not connected to the grid. A large number in China, as you note. And even if you have a grid, it costs money to use it. In Germany, that cost is 23% of end user price compared to 35% for generation cost. If you can skip the grid, as in many standalone solar systems, that is a considerable economic advantage.

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

@GeraldR

The key request is that you include all of the costs of the proposed solutions, not just the ones that make your system look the most attractive.

If you are crediting the system with saving the cost of grid connection, then you cannot be connected to the grid. If you are crediting the system with the reliability provided by a certain amount of storage, then you need to actually include the cost of that storage AND recognize the limitations of the solution selected. For example, if you choose three hours of storage, the application has to accept NO power during the rest of the night and has to accept the possibility of several days worth of no power when there are multiply overcast or stormy days in a row.

In other words, solar is inherently unreliable - that has a cost that must be included in comparisons.

Gerry Wootton
December 21, 2011

@rod-adams: why just one. Every context has it's own economics. North Americans in general assume there will be power lines close by - everyone should be so lucky. Even then, the grid isn't so reliable in some places, even in the US. I think solar makes sense in many contexts and don't agree with the rooftop versus utility scale black and whiters. LDU issues with local generation aren't entirely mistaken. My experience with rooftop siting is that optical occlusions (possibly including a neighboring building, a mature tree or even a vent pipe) and structural limitations can make rooftop less than perfect. On the other hand solar farms have a different constellation of issues including transmission losses. But then, every method of power production has it's issues. One of solar's strengths is that the cost of production can be fairly accurately forcast well into the future (the high cost of window washing not withstanding).

Storage for offline systems makes sense in many cases although in some applications such as irrigation, maybe not. Storage already makes economic sense in some districts with high TOU rates and/or demand charges whether or not local power generation also exists. In places where grid QoS is terrible, some may say that storage is essential. If nothing else, the rapidly expanding market for UPS tends to indicate that QoS rather than cost of power may be a driver. Storage and grid connectedness are not mutually exclusive - everything in context.

Gerry Wootton
December 21, 2011

1. Hands up all those that think the average cell phone user is going to go a long time without a charging station. How long can you go with days of no internet? Microgrid has strong drivers in modern times. Small scale solar and small scale hydro and even small scale wind power are actually well within technical scope of most farmers.

2. The bill for Fukushima is approaching $250B. How about the US for comparison. US tier 1 insurance amounts to $16B; tier 2 amounts to ~$11B unless some operators decide it's cheaper to be bankrupt than pony up their end (~$110M). After that it's all about legal action of all sorts - potentially a few hundred billion worth. TMI was a minor fart that lasted 24 years in the courts. It's possible this has a dampening effect on investor enthusiasm.

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

@GeraldR - you are confusing me. Are you advocating grid connected systems - which means that you have to pay for the connections to each solar system, or are you advocating distributed generation with each system backed up by storage?

If systems have BOTH grid connections and storage, you need to pay for both of them. If you want to apply the money saved by NOT connecting to the grid, then you cannot depend on the grid for power.

Please do not try to sell the best features of each design and imply that they are able to be combined into a single system.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

arny ahnfeldt
December 21, 2011

Hard to see AVG Joe up taking micro solar install in China most are still thinking about there first car, winch is pity as the home owner model feeding back in there individual small arrays on to a network is so simple. Med to Marco system are obvious scope with so many factory warehouse roofing available so it will be in the hands of big players mostly there. what i do not see in any country is a serious plan for geography and capacity installs. our company imports and does installs with the drivers here being all micro systems now with no FIT ever going to be offered and grid parity close

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

@phonix-woman

How much do you think that Price Anderson has cost the US taxpayers in its fifty years of existence?

Here is a link that provides a factual description of the insurance pool system and its costs. I expect that you will not allow facts to disuade you from your preexisting condition of ignorance about nuclear energy.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

Let's say that a brand new reactor plant does, in fact, cost $10 Billion. If the plant is a 1200 MWe AP1000, it will operate at a capacity factor of approximately 90%, meaning that it will produce approximately 9.4 billion kilowatt hours per year.

The total operating and maintenance cost for that reactor will be about 2 cents per kilowatt hour.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

If the plant owner sells power for 11 cents per kilowatt hour, the plant will be generating about $850 million per year in revenue above the cost of operation. That is plenty to pay the mortgage on a $10 billion loan, especially since the plant will be designed to have a 60-80 year life expectancy.

By the way, that 11 cents per kilowatt hour is about 60% of the price that solar developers say they need in a feed in tariff in average solar conditions in order to break even.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

PS - the primary reason why the banking and financial establishment does not like nuclear energy is because its success would threaten the returns on their massive investments in the fossil fuel extraction and delivery industry. A 1200 MWe nuclear plant needs about 3 truckloads of cheap fuel every 18 months. A coal plant needs 100 train car loads of coal every single day. A similar sized natural gas plant needs about 220 million cubic feet of natural gas every day.

Gerry Wootton
December 21, 2011

I should add that the EnergyStar go/no-go approach renders the label relatively meaningless since any product with a technically minimal level of performance gets the label. Recently, I compared lamps at a major retailer that varied from 38 lumen/W to 90 lm/W all marked Energy Star. They put a lot of 'facts' on the label without actually indicating the efficiency - you have to do your own math. Ditto ceiling fans. Similarly, refrigerators with and without an ice-maker get an identical badge of honor.
Unfortunately, efficiency seems to be the poor cousin of energy production.

Gerry Wootton
December 21, 2011

It's not just about the cost of one thing versus another. One interesting stat is that there are over 1000 Chinese cities of more than 10,000 people that will not be on the grid in the forseeable future making up part of the 300,000,000 that are not currently on the national grid. Local initiatives with microgrids and minigrids will create a substantial market for alternative energy outside of cost considerations.

I know that problem well: it would cost in excess of $50,000 to put my cottage on the grid plus a substantial monthly interconnect fee; consequently, so-called expensive inefficient solar panels with allegedly expensive storage comes in at way less cost. The other end of the stick is that energy efficiency is relatively inexpensive in comparison to production capacity - it pays to shop around (especially look at European manufacturers) since there is a drastic spread in energy efficiency in every major appliance you can buy. I would look to energy constrained countries such as China to take a run at dominance in energy efficient appliances.

Phoenix Woman
December 21, 2011

By the way, having watched as the glaciers that feed the major rivers of both China and India are melting away due to AGW, the Chinese are desperate to get off of coal, but -- having seen Fukushima (which the Japanese government now reports will take thirty to forty years to decommission and clean up) as well as the less-publicized problems with the Fort Calhoun, Nebraska plant and the built-on-a-fault-line North Anna plant in Virginia -- they are not eager to go nuclear. After Fukushima and North Anna, they suspended plans for any new plants to join the handful of nukers they have and have yet to revoke that suspension. They might soon -- maybe -- but that's up in the air.

Phoenix Woman
December 21, 2011

What Rod Adams doesn't mention is that the only reason the nuclear industry exists at all in the US is because it was given a huge Get Out Of Jail Free card in the form of the Price-Anderson Act. (He also doesn't mention that no US nuke plant has come in on budget.) Even with the huge mulligan of Price-Anderson, few banks want to touch nukers or even coal plants nowadays because of all the not-so-hidden costs associated with nuclear, coal and other dirty energy; that's why wind and solar have taken off in the past decade.

For the price of the cost overruns on one nuke plant, we could have had a beefed-up national electrical grid. For the cost of a couple of nukers (typically $10 to $20 billion, that's 'billion' with a B), we could have had a few thousand miles of solar roadways tested and installed (see also http://www.solarroadways.com) to serve as road, power station, and emergency warning system. But noooooo.

Chris Brown
December 21, 2011

@Karl-Friedrich Lenz

Yes, I have seen those predictions. They are coming from the National Development and Reform Commission's think tank, Energy Research Institute. The specific numbers I have seen are 0.8 RMB/kWh by 2015.

I would take these numbers with a huge grain of salt. I'm not sure how much value you can get Energy Research Institute analytical products. My sense is their connection to the NDRC means that the political pressure is pretty strong. ERI is far from an independent, impartial research organization.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz
December 21, 2011

@ChrisRobertBrown

Amory Lovins writes in "Reinventing Fire" that the Chinese plan to get the cost of PV solar below coal by 2015 (at locations 7020 and following in the Kindle edition). Do you have any information to confirm that?

Chris Brown
December 21, 2011

Nice to see a healthy, non-soft-headed debate here. I want to stress that I am arguing that China seriously intends to develop a solar market. How successful they will be is another question. Their moving toward a unified feed-in tariff and addressing their transmission issues, however, are increasing their chances of someday having solar be a key ingredient in their energy mix.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz
December 21, 2011

@Rod Adams

We agree completely on that point. I recall that in my first comment above I said that the solar capacity in China is close to zero per capita, and the new 15 GW goal won't change that very much.

Since you brought up the nuclear program (which may be slightly off topic here) I just said that China is certainly not going to run with nuclear only in the low carbon sector.

If you think it doesn't matter how big the array is for the generation numbers, let's just say I disagree.

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

@Karl-Friedrich - how much of the 650 TWh of electricity that you have classified as renewable was generated with solar?

I'll answer the question from the statistics compiled by the US Energy Information Agency - 0.428 TWh.

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=6&pid=36&aid=12&cid=regions&syid=2005&eyid=2009&unit=BKWH

Production numbers are hard to find with regard to solar electricity. There is a reason why it is almost impossible to get any solar energy advocate to discuss actual energy production instead of 'capacity'. It is easy to fudge on capacity, but what counts to the people who are expecting their panels to provide a useful output is how much power they deliver.

If you have ever actually owned a solar array for a substantial length of time, you will realize that the answer is not very much, no matter how big the array might be or how pretty it looks for the magazine photos or investor brochures.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz
December 21, 2011

@Rod Adams

That "soft head" provocation surprised me the first time I heard it; now I don't expect anything else from you. Fits nice with the "numerate" arrogance. :)

China has a feed-in tariff in place already for photovoltaic solar. They just doubled the surcharge on December 4th. China will see solar beat coal in cost in a couple of years.

The Chinese nuclear program is impressive as well. However, if you think that the Chinese are not very aggressively deploying all sorts of renewable energy, you might need to check your facts.

China has generated about 650 TWh of renewable electricity in 2009, and 66 of nuclear. If the 31 GW nuclear capacity come online as planned, it will have reached about 20% of the hydro capacity existing in 2010, which has doubled in five years.

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

@ChrisRobertBrown:

Based on demonstrated history of implementation, what makes you believe that your acceptance of their public statements is any stronger an argument?

Are you trying to convince me or other readers that the Communist Party of China has NOT engaged in long running propaganda campaigns?

Chris Brown
December 21, 2011

Putting aside the debate over whether solar can reliably power an industrial society and the hardness of the gray matter of the sector's proponents, I have to disagree on your main point, Rod. China is serious about developing a domestic solar market. Whether they are falling victim to the same mushy thinking the rest of us in the industry have succumbed to is another question.

There is too much evidence, however, that Beijing is working to the best of its ability to have solar become a key part of the energy mix. Anyone arguing China will never take solar seriously as long as coal is so cheap has to account for the current utility-level plants and planning, resource allocation for future ones. I don't buy that these solar projects are all a renewable Potemkin Village.

Some utility-level projects, like the eSolar CSP project in Yulin, Shaanxi, have been mostly for show and the Chinese side has never been serious about them ever producing grid-connected energy. Maybe Beijing's real energy targets are for solar to have a much smaller percentage of the energy mix than the official numbers suggest. And there is the major question about whether China will succeed in creating a robust solar market. But I don't think dismissing Beijing's solar planning, talk, current projects as lip service or propaganda is a strong argument.

Rod Adams
December 21, 2011

IMHO, China has far too many numerate people to actually believe the fiction that solar energy is cost effective or remotely useful for reliably powering an industrial society.

They are quite happy with the current arrangement of manufacturing panels for the taxpayers in other countries to purchase for rich people. I fully expect that their talk about implementing a FIT or changing the design of their transmission systems is simply lip service.

Soft headedness is not a Chinese character trait. There is a darned good reason why they are building as many domestic nuclear power plants as the rest of the world combined. The know the value and importance of reliable, low cost power.

Here in the US, we used to understand the importance of low marginal cost power for operating an industrial economy, but we were sold down the river by a bunch of lazy lawyers, bankers and accountants who could not be bothered to take any technical courses while they were in school.

(Yes Karl-Friederich, I am being intentionally provokative by implying that solar energy advocates are victims of soft headed thinking. I am hoping that some people who read this might actually engage a few brain cells to attempt to respond to what I am trying to say.)

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

John Bronson
December 21, 2011

The problem with PV in China is that the pollution is so bad, the panels may not work very well. Something of a catch 22.

drs. Martin Kleintunte
December 21, 2011

Step by step to a better world. Now let's try to reach the 2020 goals in Europe.

martin Kleintunte

www.idet.nl
www.tbi.nl

Ralph Perez
December 21, 2011

Yes, forcing the Chinese to "dump" the panels on their own citizens is a good thing. With the Chinese labor costs being so incredibly low, these panels could be covering millions of rooftops in a very short time. Millions of Chinese would be getting free energy from the sun. Free sunshine contributing to their gross domestic product in the 60-120 GW range can't hurt. Way to go American solar industry, you sure know how to protect the home market.
It will be great to see the millions of cars and bikes soon to be rolling around powered by the free energy of the sun too. GO China!!

P.S. Each Hydro power plant being built could pump the water back uphill free if a solar farm and pump are placed next to each one (based on peak power needs).

Gerry Wootton
December 20, 2011

If we're talking capacity per person, let's consider that the US had a whopping 6.6 W per capita at the end of 2010 while the US GDP percapita is more than 6 times that of China. Obviously, China will have a hard time absorbing even a fraction of their surplus capacity.

Power engineering talent shortages are not exclusive to China. The US fleet of power engineers is aging with over half close to retirement and not enough to take their place. The need for a smart grid to carry the power system into the future is generally assumed ... now all that is needed is enough smart people to engineer this large scale change.

Chris Brown
December 20, 2011

Good point, Karl-Friederich, about per capita.

I also agree that the rising China solar market will be a good thing for the industry.

Liu Qi, the deputy director of China's National Energy Administration, last week acknowledged that much of the problem with getting the utility-level renewable energy projects connected to the grid has been a lack of engineering expertise, especially in the remote areas. Li Qi says that now China is will seek more international cooperation in solving this problem.

I consider this a strong indication that foreign businesses will be able to participate and profit from working with Chinese counterparts in developing the country's solar market.

Karl-Friedrich Lenz
December 20, 2011

15 GW capacity would bring China to still just about nothing in capacity per capita. Barely more than ten watt per person. If they want to reach the world champion's level (my home state of Bavaria at 0.604 kW per capita), they would need a goal of over 800 GW.

That will happen as well in due time, once solar is cheaper than coal in a couple of years.

Sam Harriman
December 20, 2011

Alright, Ok. I think this is only a good thing for the industry. While I prefer to support domestic manufacturing, I like the idea of well-made $1/Watt Trina Modules. There; I said it.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

REW.com Editors

Renewable Energy World's network editors help deliver the most comprehensive news coverage of the renewable energy industries. Based in the U.S. and the UK, the team is comprised of editors from Pennwell Corporation's myriad of publications...