Sunny days ahead for (distributed) solar projects (in China)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2013-07/20/c_132557364.htm

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Sunny days ahead for solar projects[/font]
English.news.cn 2013-07-20 08:29:51
By Li Shuo

[font size=3]BEIJING, July 20 (Xinhuanet) -- China is working extensively to unlock its domestic solar potential by pushing small-scale distributed projects. The State Council's detailed guideline to facilitate the development of the solar products' industry, issued on July 15, is a major boost in this regard. In fact, the solar industry has featured twice on the agenda of China's cabinet in just more than a month.

On June 14, Premier Li Keqiang chaired a regular State Council work session, where the solar industry's development was one of two subjects discussed (the other being controlling air pollution). The session came up with a six-point strategy, highlighting the urgency of distributed solar power projects and full grid connection, and called for optimizing financial incentives for distributed solar energy generation.

The July 15 guideline goes one step further in implementing the high-level strategy. The first thing that stands out in the guideline is the raising of the 2015 solar installation target to 35 gigawatts, a seven-fold jump from what the government set at the beginning of the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15). To achieve this target, the authorities aim to increase installed solar power generation capacity by at least 10 GW a year from 2013 to 2015. This is an ambitious goal considering that China's current accumulative solar generation capacity in GW barely touches double digits.

Chinese policymakers are banking on the large untapped distributed solar power market to raise demand. The guideline explains how distributed projects will be supported.

...[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

1. I thought they were at 7GW currently

35 GW of solar at 20% CF would be the same aggregate output as 8.75GW of nuclear at 80%CF (global lifetime average of nuclear fleet is, using very generous assumptions, 79%).

Our phissionophiles(TM) will probably object to the use of 80% capacity factor, citing recent performance of much of the US nuclear fleet in the very low 90% range. Anticipating that, let me point out that China is new to nuclear power plant construction and operation, and the reactor designs they are using are also largely unproven over time. This means the foundation of any claim to a high capacity factor is nebulous, at best.

To make the point about the poor foundation claims asserting a defacto high capacity factor for ANY large scale evaluation of nuclear, I'll share a few lines from former Exelon CEO John Rowe's outgoing address the the American Nuclear Society:

By the time I came back to Illinois in 1998 as CEO, ComEd was the uncontested winner of the title “Worst Nuclear Fleet in the Country.”
It was running at a fleet-wide capacity factor below 50%. The Board shut down two units at Zion and contemplated shutting down Dresden and Quad Cities.
As CEO, I flew air cover for Oliver Kingsley and Chris Crane while they turned around the fleet.
Today, Exelon’s fleet consistently has a capacity factor of 93% or better and is, at least in my view, the best nuclear fleet in the country.

John W. Rowe, Chairman and CEO Exelon
My Last Nuclear Speech
American Nuclear Society Utility Working Conference
Hollywood, Fla. August 15, 2011

[FBaggins]

3. Why play games with the numbers?

When the actual figures are available?

China's nuclear CF last year was 87%. There isn't any reason to doubt that as they install the newer models (fewer/shorter refeuling cycles) they can easily get into the low 90s

Solar was better than Germany, but still at 14%.

Their wind CF would reportedly have hit 25%, if transmission issues hadn't gotten in the way (they actually hit 21%)

[kristopher]

4. You have very little basis for your assumptions on future performance

In the case of nuclear I repeat - it is a new design, China is new to reactor construction on this scale, and they are new to the task of plant operations at this scale. You are making the assumption that their effort will go off without a hitch, but the global history of nuclear power argues strongly against that possibility. More likely over the course of the next couple of decades (especially considering the rampant corruption in the area of nuclear construction) they will encounter problems requiring multiyear shutdowns of one, several or all of the plants. Of course, using your nuclear industry approved methods, those shutdowns don't count against the capacity factors of the plants - however to the impartial observer considering the policy implications, the lifetime capacity factor is at least as important as the daily capacity factor.

...this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to ... overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes.

<snip>

If one assumes perfect plant components, routine refueling/maintenance, and flawless performance, at best reactors can achieve very-short-term, 90% load factors. During the first 30 years of US-commercial-fission experience (beginning in the 1950s), proponents say nuclear-load-factor averages were 50%. With more reactors than other nations, the US has 104 plants. Nuclear proponents say their lifetime-load-factor average is 71%. UK load factors are similar. Only 7 global reactors (1.7% of 414)—mostly those with lax design/standards/enforcement in developing nations—have ever eliminated original ‘‘bugs,’’ then later achieved short-term, 90% load factors. Although reactor vendors claim a 79%, global-average- load factor, this figure excludes early-retirement (poorly performing) plants and reactors’ early years of operation .
Rather than 71 or 79%, however, most nuclear-cost studies... assume 85–95% nuclear-load factors,...a lifetime-fleet average never achieved by any nation. When the pro- nuclear MIT (see later discussion) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies recently reported US-nuclear-load factors of ‘‘about 90%,’’ they admitted this figure covered only the last 5 years, included no new plants, and ignored lifetime-average data and early-shutdown reactors, all of which reveal the correct, lifetime-load average to about 70%. Obviously assessors should use national, lifetime-load averages, not short-term load factors, and neither those for the highest-performing reactors (that likely have deferred maintenance), nor those for the lowest-performing reactors (e.g., 14% load factor for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, reactor.

That's from a very good and detailed discussion of nuclear capacity factor bookkeeping published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics titled "Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest" by Kristin Shrader-Frechette of Notre Dame
PDF is here: http://www3.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf


As for the wind and solar reference you've found, it's an interesting source, but hardly definitive support for your claim.

The paper makes no pretense at being an analysis of the actual production by renewable technologies, and in fact provides a specific disclaimer: In 2010 it is widely acknowledged that a fraction of installed capacity was not yet connected to the grid, and so our assumption may underestimate the ratio of generation to installed capacity in the future."

The problem with using their number as indicative of the future of solar is also that the measured sample of solar is extremely small (800MW) and possibly suffers from a bias introduced because it was the very earliest solar installed. For example, the economics of the pre2010 era could have dictated that most of it was consumed directly at the source of generation with little to no ability to measure actual output except in those installations in urban areas with a bad smog problem. Since there is no reference given for the data, and since it varies substantially from the accepted norm of about 20%CF for solar, AND since China is a large and geographically diverse nation with no shortage of sun, the idea that their capacity factor for solar is 14% requires closer scrutiny than is offered in the paper.

[Franker65]

2. Good to hear - renewable energy is really making great strides in China

Whatever about solar, it's also great to see that wind is also making progress in China. The China Wind Energy Association announced that wind power has now surpassed nuclear energy, according to statistics.