World now has five times more photovoltaics than nuclear power (www.pv-magazine.com)
from ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world on 19 Sep 22:27
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28109164

“But even in the only country that is massively building, China, nuclear development is comparatively marginal. In 2023, China started up one new nuclear reactor, that is plus 1 GW, and more than 200 GW of solar alone. Solar generated 40% more power than nuclear and all non-hydro renewables—mainly wind, solar, and biomass—generated four times as much as nuclear.”
The report also highlights how nuclear power is being challenged not only by the strong growth of solar and wind, but also by battery storage, whose costs are projected to decline below those of coal-fired and nuclear power plants by around 2025 in China. “Solar plus storage is already significantly lower than nuclear power in most markets today, as well as highly competitive with other low-emissions sources of electricity that are commercially available today,” it also notes.
The authors also cite data from investment bank Lazard revealing that solar-plus-storage can already be cheaper than gas peaking and new nuclear. “The competitive cost and large-scale availability of variable renewable energy sources combined with firming options—especially storage—could well turn out to be the game-changer of energy policy in the years to come,” they further explain.

#technology

threaded - newest

RiQuY@lemm.ee on 19 Sep 22:48 next collapse

PV?

ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 19 Sep 23:05 collapse

Photovoltaics

StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org on 19 Sep 23:25 collapse

Thank you. I was trying to figure this out as well.

Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca on 19 Sep 22:49 next collapse

Holy hell, Photovoltaics

Not ONCE does this article use the actual word and sticks to abbreviation for Photovoltaics.

Reverendender@sh.itjust.works on 19 Sep 22:53 next collapse

That crap drives me bonkers.

Especially because I had no idea what PV was.

Zachariah@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 00:27 next collapse

penis vagina

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 05:34 collapse

Pole Vaulting

Badeendje@lemmy.world on 19 Sep 23:37 next collapse

All it would have taken is: photovoltaics or PV for short…rest of article.

0x0@programming.dev on 20 Sep 09:40 collapse

The common approach is when using photovoltaics (PV) bla bla… PVs this PVs that…

ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 02:00 collapse

I imagine they assumed readers of PV Magazine would be photovoltaics enthusiasts.

Kecessa@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 02:15 next collapse

Must be crazy to assume such a thing!

Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca on 20 Sep 02:15 collapse

I guess but it’s still basic writing etiquette and clears up any potential misconception. It’s not like they pay by the letter anymore

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 09:46 collapse

Clearly not a subscriber.

altima_neo@lemmy.zip on 19 Sep 23:01 next collapse

Promotion Video? Like Japanese idols have?

lowleveldata@programming.dev on 20 Sep 00:27 next collapse

Yes

rem26_art@fedia.io on 20 Sep 00:12 next collapse

Idols truly have the ability to power the world!

Grass@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 03:39 collapse

I’ve been cursed. the words promotion, video, and japanese in close proximity always remind me of that really weird japanesy trump promo video and I wish I could delete that from my head.

nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl on 20 Sep 04:08 collapse

You mean Mike Diva’s?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

Grass@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 05:04 collapse

yeah that

Greg@lemmy.ca on 20 Sep 00:49 next collapse

Jokes on you, solar energy is nuclear fusion

booly@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 02:39 next collapse

So is biomass. And wind. And fossil fuels. And hydro.

In fact, I think only geothermal and fission aren’t fusion-based.

Greg@lemmy.ca on 20 Sep 02:48 next collapse

Tidal is also non fusion based

Reverendender@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 13:42 collapse

Not with that attitude

MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network on 20 Sep 09:59 next collapse

Fission is based on the fusion that took place in ancient supernovae.

eleitl@lemm.ee on 20 Sep 16:29 collapse

Neutron star collision. Supernova nucleosynthesis is also when fusion turns off.

Wrufieotnak@feddit.org on 20 Sep 10:54 next collapse

All atoms higher than hydrogen come from stars. So in the end, everything is derived from fusion. Therefore, geothermal and fission can only exist because of nuclear fusion.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml on 20 Sep 11:17 next collapse

Fossil fuel is by extension of extension. Fission by extension of extension of extension.

JustZ@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 12:26 collapse

Everything is stardust so it’s everything fusion based?

booly@sh.itjust.works on 20 Sep 13:48 next collapse

The kinetic energy in that stardust, and the gravitational potential energy of stardust pulling itself into tighter balls, doesn’t necessarily come from fusion. There’s all sorts of cosmological forces and energy out there, and I don’t think they all trace back to nucleii smushing together.

JustZ@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 14:02 collapse

That’s true I suppose.

eleitl@lemm.ee on 20 Sep 16:28 collapse

Heavier nucleosynthesis requires neutron star collisions, so not fusion-driven. Supernovas are also when fusion stops.

Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de on 20 Sep 08:39 collapse

Solar panels are fusion harvesters.

0x0@programming.dev on 20 Sep 09:41 next collapse

Meh… this only makes sense in giant installations on the far side of the moon, then laser down the power.

Covering the world in solar panels… not so much.

Wrufieotnak@feddit.org on 20 Sep 10:56 next collapse

Yep, definitely not usable for a decentralized power grid. All those wasted PV cells on all those homes which now generate most of their used electricity themselves. Too bad that doesn’t work.

ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 20 Sep 11:13 collapse

A bit more than half of the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the USA, is needed for a photovoltaic system to power the entire country according to Prof. Mark Z Jacobson (who calculated it according to 2050 energy needs after full electrification).

JustZ@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 12:25 next collapse

One calculator at a time…

dgmib@lemmy.world on 20 Sep 16:11 collapse

Such an incredibly misleading article.

1 GW of nuclear capacity generates several times more electricity than 1 GW of PV capacity.

Nuclear power plants run at almost full capacity pretty much 24/7/365. With the occasional shutdown every few years for maintenance and to replace the fuel rods.

PVs only generate electricity during the day, and only hit their maximum capacity under ideal conditions. The average output of PVs is 15-25% of their capacity.

Globally we generate more electricity from nuclear than we do from all PVs together.

At the typical sizes we’re building them you need dozens of PV farms to match the energy output of a single nuclear reactor.

eleitl@lemm.ee on 20 Sep 16:25 next collapse

My capacity factor is something like 11%. Need to recompute it, using latest data.

frezik@midwest.social on 20 Sep 17:04 collapse

Five times more PVs at a 20% capacity factor means it evens out.

The vast majority of those PV installations were in the last 7 years or so. We also built more manufacturing capability during that time. Meaning PV installations are being rolled out on an exponential curve, not a linear one.

dgmib@lemmy.world on 21 Sep 05:54 collapse

It’s not an exponential curve. It’s slower than that.

It’s more than linear; we are adding more capacity each year than the year before. But added capacity per year as a percentage of the previous years total is a decreasing.

If it was exponential the growth would be a straight(ish) line when plotted on a logarithmic scale… it’s not. On a log scale the line inflects.

frezik@midwest.social on 21 Sep 06:48 collapse

It’s exponential.

livemint.com/…/the-exponential-growth-of-solar-po…

To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

dgmib@lemmy.world on 21 Sep 07:08 collapse

Whoever wrote that article is playing fast and loose with the definition of exponential.

Here’s the actual data of global electricity source on a log scale for the past ~15 years

Notice that the line for both wind and solar is inflecting to the right. If it was exponential it would be straight.

The time between each doubling of output is increasing.

It’s close, but not enough to be exponential growth.

It was exponential for a while but it’s slowing down in the last decade or two.