Top Solar Firm Warns Excess Capacity Risks Wave of Failures (caixinglobal.com) 73
China's world-leading solar industry could face a wave of bankruptcies if the current aggressive expansion of manufacturing capacity continues, according to the sector's biggest player. From a report: More than half of China's solar manufacturers could be forced out in the next two to three years because of excess capacity, Li Zhenguo, president of Longi Green Energy Technology, said during an interview Wednesday on the sidelines of the SNEC PV Power Expo in Shanghai. "Those that will be hurt first will be those that are not prepared sufficiently," he said. Companies with weaker finances and less-advanced technology are most at risk, according to Li.
The global solar market is growing rapidly, with installations expected to rise 36% this year to 344 gigawatts, according to BloombergNEF. But factories are expanding even faster. One step in the supply chain alone -- producing the polysilicon that goes into the panels -- will see capacity rise enough to produce 600 gigawatts this year, BloombergNEF analyst Jenny Chase said in a presentation at SNEC earlier this week. "There will be a price crash, it will hurt, and there will probably be bankruptcies across the industry," she said. Others pushed back against overcapacity concerns. Companies that are expanding are doing so because their customers need it, said Li Junfeng, executive council member of the China Energy Research Society.
The global solar market is growing rapidly, with installations expected to rise 36% this year to 344 gigawatts, according to BloombergNEF. But factories are expanding even faster. One step in the supply chain alone -- producing the polysilicon that goes into the panels -- will see capacity rise enough to produce 600 gigawatts this year, BloombergNEF analyst Jenny Chase said in a presentation at SNEC earlier this week. "There will be a price crash, it will hurt, and there will probably be bankruptcies across the industry," she said. Others pushed back against overcapacity concerns. Companies that are expanding are doing so because their customers need it, said Li Junfeng, executive council member of the China Energy Research Society.
That's not very bright (Score:1)
It is in their interest to mention this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they will mention this. It is in their interest to keep more investments out of the industry.
Solar panels also have a lot more to go, research-wise. Even though they have improved, there is still technologies like bifacial panels (which get light from underneath... which gives ~10% more energy at "shoulder hours" if mounted at 1-2m off the ground, intrinsic cooling (which would allow lenses to be used), and other methods to keep the PV cells at their optimum temperature. We have not even started to get flexible panels, transparent panels, and other forms of PV devices off the ground.
Of course, there are other improvements. Battery chargers, microinverters, better wiring, and many other items. For example, a MPPT converter can make a major difference in energy gain on panels, especially during mornings/evenings. The ability for a panel to not completely stop generating energy if partially shaded is another thing that still needs improvement.
Even though solar panels have come a long way, it isn't like they are perfect. There is a ton of development that can be done to make them more efficient and usable in more places.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like this isn't about R&D, just finding enough buyers for current panels at or above what it costs to manufacture them.
Who has the money to buy them, and the land to put them up?
For most European nations to get all their energy from solar would require covering 20% of their land area with solar panels. Okay, so they don't get all their energy from solar, but perhaps 1/4th. That still means covering 5% of their land with solar panels. Okay then, they put up solar panels in nations where they have more open land then run HVDC wires back to where the energy is needed. I'm quite certain that's going to upset people. You'd
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you think about plans to put solar panels on top of parking lots. This idea has been gaining a lot of traction and certainly makes a lot more sense than tying up land that could be used for things like parks, agriculture, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar PV panels over parking lots are going to be more expensive than utility scale solar PV. There's a matter of this being a small scale, with perhaps few exceptions with airports or something. Then there's the added costs of labor and material in putting everything high enough to drive under. I'd believe the costs to be comparable to rooftop solar, and that's very expensive when compared to other options. Wikipedia is a good enough place to start on seeing that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Then
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You always describe worst case scenarios. There is a huge amount of available space on rooftops and parking lots. Even with solar on open land there can be dual use.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that covering 20% of the land area in Europe with solar panels is a best case.
It assumes some fairly high end PV cells, and weather being consistent year to year. Get a bad year and there's an energy shortage. We can assume some energy storage systems but that costs money and so is more for averaging over days than years. That means having a bad week can mean an energy shortage. The resolution to this is an overbuild of solar power, meaning greater than 20% land coverage. There's potent
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you're just making all this up.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you're just making all this up.
Read this: http://www.withouthotair.com/N... [withouthotair.com]
Especially this part:
Countries whose power consumption per unit area is bigger than 0.1 watt per square meter, like those where most people in the developed world live, are countries that should expect renewable facilities to occupy a significant, intrusive fraction of their land, if they ever want to live on their own renewables.
Countries with power consumption per unit area of more than 1 watt per square meter, like Britain, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium and South Korea, would have to industrialize much of their countryside to live on their own renewables.
Alternatively, their options are to radically reduce consumption, use nuclear power and buy additional renewable power from other, less densely populated, countries.
The power per area of nuclear power facilities, by the way, is about 1,000 watts per square meter â" much higher than that of renewables. When it comes to the land area required, nuclear power stations and uranium mines are relatively small and unobtrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have better data? If so then please share.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are your links always pointing to stuff 10 years out of date?
Maybe because it has been a known thing since that long... Researchers tend to research new stuffs, not the same stuffs over and over again.
The question would be why are you still so behind the times, and still denying the science?
Re: (Score:2)
A number of countries get upwards of 40% electricity consumption from renewables already, and many of them are pushing for 100%. They seem to have plenty of available land.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
https://www.climatecouncil.org... [climatecouncil.org.au]
"Germany aims to fulfil all its electricity needs with supplies from renewable sources by 2035"
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A number of countries get upwards of 40% electricity consumption from renewables already, and many of them are pushing for 100%. They seem to have plenty of available land.
For most of the world electricity is roughly 1/3rd of total energy use, again this is a rough estimate as it can vary. The estimate of needing 20% of land covered by solar for all energy means no use of any other energy source, and all energy is obtained this way. All energy, not just electricity. Transportation is about 1/3rd of energy use, and the remaining 1/3rd is heating, industry, and a few other bits. Getting to 40% electricity from renewable sources is a long way from 100% of all energy.
I alread
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody plans to get all their electricity or their total energy from solar only. You've made a strawman.
Pro-nuclear nonsense... for retards. (Score:2)
David J. C. MacKay has been dead since 2016. That "book" of his is from 2008. Data in it and ideas he based his thinking on were outdated even then.
Particularly regarding the very issue of this thread - price of solar panels.
See, Dave ol boy was that particular kind of techie moron who, despite having a list of degrees longer than my cock, doesn't get that solar panels, being made of industrially grown crystal wafers, are ruled by same rules of production efficiencies interpreted in the tech world as Moore'
Re: (Score:2)
You made no argument that the data was wrong. You didn't explain how the conclusions were wrong, an important distinction since people can get the right answers for the wrong reasons. All you did was fire off a string of insults and half truths. If this is how the argument against nuclear power is going today then that is an admission of failure. If you have a logical argument then bring it. If not then insults aren't going to get you far. Reality can only be denied for so long. At some point the wor
Re: (Score:2)
You made no argument that the data was wrong.
Oh... I did. It's just that you are too stupid to understand them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You keep inventing these extremely dumb scenarios because solar is an existential threat to your beloved nuclear power.
Countries should be looking to cover every roof with solar. It's one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity, and helps citizens with energy costs. Governments can borrow cheaply and get the money back over the lifetime of the panels.
The biggest problem is that people in apartments can't take advantage of solar so easily.
This is how we solve climate change, at a price we can afford. Th
Re: (Score:2)
You keep inventing these extremely dumb scenarios because solar is an existential threat to your beloved nuclear power.
Really? Solar power is an "existential" threat to nuclear power? I don't believe so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The UAE is a very sunny place. A place with lots of petroleum and natural gas. A place that also built three nuclear reactors, each built within eight years, with a fourth being built, each of a gigawatt level of electrical output. They were built on schedule, and I'd add that they were built on budget but I suspect that would bring accusations of slave labor or something making the acco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are upset that nuclear power gets the same subsidies as wind and solar? I don't like subsidies but if there's going to be subsidies for lowering CO2 emissions then nuclear fission should be in that list.
I don't want nuclear power subsidized. I believe that if it was subsidized then it would fall in the same pit that solar power has where it's not competing on costs because it doesn't have to. I don't want wind and solar subsidized either because I believe solar power to be a money pit and wind power
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a good argument you wouldn't be wasting your time on Slashdot, or bothering with sock puppet accounts to mod down people who disagree with you.
Nuclear is dying, and rightly so. You can't fix it, you don't have any solutions to the crippling problems of cost and what to do with waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is dying, and rightly so. You can't fix it, you don't have any solutions to the crippling problems of cost and what to do with waste.
Nope, that's in your delusional dreams.
You can't fix it
Not much to fix, this is already one of the most heavily regulated industry, with:
- 4 redundant systems for almost any security system (planes only have 1-2 for reference, even though they fail a lot more often)
- passive/active security features
- retro-fitted new security measures during yearly inspections
The only thing to fix would be to get ignorant people like you to actually understand the science, but to be honest, that seems an impossible job.
you don't have any solutions to the crippling problems of cost and what to do with waste.
Costs is mostly driv
Re: (Score:2)
Waste is mostly a solved problem
Oh yeah? Show us the waste storage facility, paired with the waste storage techniques. No? Dry casks get embrittled and leak, and fuel pools require ongoing maintenance and are just a disaster (literally, like a quake) waiting to happen? Well shiver my fucking timbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of talking nonsense, go do some research about waste management for nuclear. You can start with the link I gave in the previous post. This is a solved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of talking nonsense, go do some research about waste management for nuclear. You can start with the link I gave in the previous post. This is a solved problem.
I did the research, which is how I know it's not a solved problem. Not watching your video, it takes a lot less time to debunk nuclear fanboys' textual propaganda and even that is boring.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one relying on deceptive semantics for your arguments: calling nuclear plants "nukes", calling anyone supporting both renewables and nuclear (in my case) a "nuclear fanboy", saying "I did the research" while failing to back up any claim you make...
You are dangerous, and you don't even realize it. You are actively harming the climate. Even people who don't care about it are less harmful than you.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one relying on deceptive semantics for your arguments: calling nuclear plants "nukes"
Where?
calling anyone supporting both renewables and nuclear (in my case) a "nuclear fanboy"
Nuclear makes no sense no matter how much or how little you use, except in extreme niche cases like ice breakers, long range spacecraft, or aircraft carriers.
saying "I did the research" while failing to back up any claim you make...
These facts are readily available to anyone who cares. They are in all the reports. You said you did the research when you obviously didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you mention "long range spacecraft" as an application for nuclear speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I love welding all this power to shut down nuclear. I just point out the obvious issues and magically investors flee.
Next I'm going to do oil. We'll be off it in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
Next I'm going to do oil. We'll be off it in no time.
You and your likes are supporting oil, and you don't even realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is dying,
Nuclear is presently enjoying resurgence with commensurate increases in investment and new technologies.
and rightly so.
System modeling I've seen shows including at least 20% of something like nuclear (in energy mix is critical to a reliable clean grid. Without it environmental and monetary cost associated with over provisioning, transmission and storage avoidably skyrocket.
You can't fix it, you don't have any solutions to the crippling problems of cost and what to do with waste.
The solution to cost is serial production. Waste is a a non-issue. The sum total of all US high level waste from nuclear plants has a mass of less t
Re: (Score:2)
You keep inventing these extremely dumb scenarios because solar is an existential threat to your beloved nuclear power.
Nuclear is an existential thread to gas/coal. This is why gas/fossil fuels companies are funding greenpeace and the likes [environmen...ogress.org], and why many original founders of those movements left them [politico.com].
This is also why a few years ago, there was a conference for gas operators, where they were cheering for solar/wind: they know that if they can get people to dislike nuclear enough, they will be the ones benefiting from it to cover the intermitency of those renewables.
The sad part is that you (yes, you Amimojo) surely think you
Re: (Score:2)
Countries should be looking to cover every roof with solar. It's one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity, and helps citizens with energy costs. Governments can borrow cheaply and get the money back over the lifetime of the panels.
The inescapable reality is rooftop PV is more expensive and more polluting than utility PV, wind and sometimes nuclear. Rooftop is 4x as polluting as nuclear. No matter how you look at it rooftop is presently a bad deal from both environmental and monetary perspectives.
The biggest problem is that people in apartments can't take advantage of solar so easily.
This is how we solve climate change, at a price we can afford. There should be no lack of demand, we should be buying every panel we can lay our hands on.
If you really cared about climate change you would be taking the money and carbon wasted on residential PV and invest in wind, hydro and nuclear projects. If you don't live where any of that is possible then invest monies where it is. Cli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just another boom and bust industry. It will shake out eventually, but as they say, the market can stay insane longer than you can stay solvent.
Re: (Score:2)
Bifacial panels rarely provide much benefit, but they don't cost much more in quantity so that's not a big drawback. They don't really make sense in residential applications, where you want the panels relatively tight against the roof so they don't flop around in high winds. Cooling systems are trouble. Lenses are trouble. Flexible panels don't work because micro cracks are enough to doom them. Transparent panels exist, but there are too many opportunities yet for the non-transparent panels for them to make
Re: (Score:2)
I found bifacial panels work well about 6-10 feet off the ground, which is good enough to catch evening shade. The price difference is low enough to make that worth it.
You hit the nail on the head with flexible panels, which is why I wish more work can be done on those. IIRC, at most, they are warrantied for 1-2 years, while conventional panels with frames are warrantied for decades. Plus, having panels with frames on a RV actually creates shade, assuming there is a small air gap between the panel and th
Re: (Score:2)
Until the grid goes down.
(Very bad if you are dependent on a line-powered medical device.)
A grid-connected inverter/battery/solar system doubles as a days-long UPS. (You can even leave off the solar panels initially, letting it charge the batteries from the line, and run it as JUST a UPS.)Add panels when you get around to it or find a bargain source. (Even a
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, the hard panels provide a reduced insolation benefit, so it's pretty hard to come up with a good use case for the flexible ones. I used to think it would be neat to have a boat's sail do it, and that would be neat, but now it's clear it would make more sense to use a rigid sail...
Link to original article (Score:2)
The link in the summary is not only paywalled, it's a chinese site with a copy of a bloomberg article found https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com] (also paywalled).
There is no excess capacity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That winter storm in Texas you speak of? Affected the traditional sources, not the solar/wind sources you scoff at. Most of the wind mills, for instance, were happily spinning away.
And I live in the snow belt of the midwest and I wouldn't see snow covered panels for more than a month all told. My asphalt shingles don't stay snow covered all that often, all things considered, and solar panels would clear at about the same rate.
Re: (Score:2)
So how well do your solar panels do in the winter? Heavy overcast plus low sun angle can cut mine down to 7% of nameplate, and that is with no snow. Factor in the 8 hours of actual daylight and the power consumption is 60 kw-hr per day in an all electric house with heat pump, and that is a lot of solar panels. And I hadn't even figured in battery and inverter efficiency yet.
Wind is no help, the same inversions that bring in the heavy overcast also bring dead calm.
Re: (Score:2)
My asphalt shingles don't stay snow covered all that often, all things considered, and solar panels would clear at about the same rate.
I had that problem too, then I got more insulation in the crawl space, now the snow doesn't melt nearly as quickly. If you are in the Midwest and the snow melts off your roof that quickly then you likely have a need for an insulation upgrade.
Most of the wind mills, for instance, were happily spinning away.
Reports were that all energy sources were impacted. Windmills froze up just like everything else.
That winter storm in Texas you speak of? Affected the traditional sources, not the solar/wind sources you scoff at.
None of the solar or wind capacity went offline? Pretty sure that's not true. I can recall reports of snow covered solar panels and roads with too much snow to allow wor
Re: (Score:2)
I wish we had more nuke plants. Here in Texas, it is natural gas leading everything, with some biomass plants and coal. Renewables are present, but the main source of energy is definitely fossil fuels.
Re: There is no excess capacity (Score:2)
Kinda like GPU manufacturing? (Score:1)
This is just kinda stupid. If anything I'm more likely to invest in solar startups after reading this.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything I'm more likely to invest in solar startups after reading this.
With that reasoning, you should invest on milk producers too. Or plastic bottles.
Or maybe you can try to understand how basic economics work.
Free Market in Action (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:3)
Honestly, China has undercut and driven out about every other country when it comes to solar panels. I couldn't give two shits about anything having to do with their solar industrial capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my first thought. "Why should I give a shit about China's heavily subsidized solar manufacturing industry?" China can bail out those companies if it wants to keep them afloat. That's a danger of trying to speculatively capture an emerging market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, these protectionist measures (or anti-dumping measures, if you prefer) are surely contributing to China's overproduction woes
so when do solar panels go on clearance? (Score:3)
Does this mean home owners will have a chance to buy rooftop solar at a somewhat reasonable price? Maybe, sellers will actually provide some prices up front, instead of keeping it all in the dark, insisting they have to tailor the installation to the individual roof and monthly electric bill before they can provide a quote? Wouldn't surprise me if they want to see the electric bill to get an idea what the homeowner can afford, and ratchet up their quote accordingly.