United States and China help boost worldwide solar production by 50% over last year

[William Gayde]

Solar power is widely seen as the most viable source of green energy due to its ease of installation and plentiful sunshine. There are currently about 305 gigawatts of solar generation capacity in the world, which is up from 50 gigawatts in 2010. According to information gathered by The Guardian, China and the US are leading leading this growth. Both countries nearly doubled their solar capacity from 2015 with the world in total adding nearly 80GW in 2016; up from just 50GW in 2015.

Government incentives and increasing concern about climate change has helped solar's strong growth. China alone accounted for nearly half of all solar installed last year with Asian markets as a whole accounting for nearly two-thirds of all new capacity in 2016.

European growth was strong, too, with the 100GW milestone surpassed in early 2016. Since then, growth has slowed, prompting calls for the EU to increase its renewable energy goal from 20% to 35% by 2030. Stalled tax incentives in the UK have caused a near 50% decline in new installations, but they still lead Europe by a sizable margin.

In order to maintain this trend, it's clear governments need to continue incentivizing homeowners and businesses to go solar. Reliable and large scale energy storage technologies need to be developed as well. Overall 2016 was a good year for solar energy, but there's still a long way to go.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/68448-us-china-help-boost-worldwide-solar-production-50.html

 

[Rippleman]

Doc Brown: I could travel 252 times in a year with that kind of juice.

 

[Uncle Al]

Certainly wish they would do a few pieces on some of the other "green" devices we are seeing. I'm all for wind & solar, but there are others and some are very promising .....

 

[bmw95]

Certainly wish they would do a few pieces on some of the other "green" devices we are seeing. I'm all for wind & solar, but there are others and some are very promising .....

Just out of curiosity, what other kinds? Been awhile since I looked into this stuff lol.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Certainly wish they would do a few pieces on some of the other "green" devices we are seeing. I'm all for wind & solar, but there are others and some are very promising .....

Just out of curiosity, what other kinds? Been awhile since I looked into this stuff lol.

Yeah, I'm at a loss as well. Renewable, clean energy is typically solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. Two of those are very location specific.

Nuclear is in there, but that isnt in the "promising" stage, its in the "in use" stage.

 

[Uncle Al]

Yeah, I'm at a loss as well. Renewable, clean energy is typically solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. Two of those are very location specific.

Nuclear is in there, but that isnt in the "promising" stage, its in the "in use" stage.

Not all are entirely sustainable, but some do drastically cut the amount of fossil fuels used. The best one that comes to mind was shown on NOVA one evening; the water burning engine. I saw the original one in the Sydney Industrial Museum decades ago. Since then there have been a few others including one that was built by a University of Tennessee professor who drives it around the country. This latest one is being developed by a company that has already refuted the advances by the major car companies to buy them out. It's the real deal, runs on a fundamental that was also used in Vitrification which breaks the water molecule down to it's atomic structure then re-blends it to a combustible gas. The one they showed was about 1/2 the size of a car but their production model was going to be about the same size as a car engine.

As to Nuclear, the use of UF4 (Thorium) is practical and already proven. The critical mass is created by the salt which is in a brine like solution. If the brine drains away, the reaction stops, thus preventing a "melt down". The reason it wasn't initially used was purely political based on some key politicians investments in uranium (or so the story goes). It's not completely hazard free, but an extremely safer alternative compared to the "hot" reactors we current have. There was an article on 60 minutes about this one about three months ago.

 

[bmw95]

Not all are entirely sustainable, but some do drastically cut the amount of fossil fuels used. The best one that comes to mind was shown on NOVA one evening; the water burning engine. I saw the original one in the Sydney Industrial Museum decades ago. Since then there have been a few others including one that was built by a University of Tennessee professor who drives it around the country. This latest one is being developed by a company that has already refuted the advances by the major car companies to buy them out. It's the real deal, runs on a fundamental that was also used in Vitrification which breaks the water molecule down to it's atomic structure then re-blends it to a combustible gas. The one they showed was about 1/2 the size of a car but their production model was going to be about the same size as a car engine.

As to Nuclear, the use of UF4 (Thorium) is practical and already proven. The critical mass is created by the salt which is in a brine like solution. If the brine drains away, the reaction stops, thus preventing a "melt down". The reason it wasn't initially used was purely political based on some key politicians investments in uranium (or so the story goes). It's not completely hazard free, but an extremely safer alternative compared to the "hot" reactors we current have. There was an article on 60 minutes about this one about three months ago.

I looked into Thorium and was pretty fascinated as well. For awhile I wondered why it wasn't used very much (excluding pro-uranium politics). However I came across an article that explained the reason it's not being used is because of the extreme toxicity of the leftover waste, much more than that of uranium. Either that or it produces much more waste, can't remember which. Could be a valid explanation. The water burning engine is interesting though I've never heard of that.

 

[Uncle Al]

I looked into Thorium and was pretty fascinated as well. For awhile I wondered why it wasn't used very much (excluding pro-uranium politics). However I came across an article that explained the reason it's not being used is because of the extreme toxicity of the leftover waste, much more than that of uranium. Either that or it produces much more waste, can't remember which. Could be a valid explanation. The water burning engine is interesting though I've never heard of that.

The thing with UF4 is that, as used in these new reactors there is no waste because it serves as the "coolant" & conductor. It is not the principle fuel so it dosen't degrade. As far as handling the waste, unlike uranium rods or plutonium gases, it can be processed out as is being done at the Paducah, KY facility where they have the majority of it stored. Don't quote me, but if memory serves they said there is enough UF4 and UF 6 at Paducah to power all the needs of the USA for some 10,000 years, which is another item that floors me. We have all this potential, yet we have simply ignored it! Kind of on par with our new Secretary of the EPA that says he disputes the science behind the greenhouse gasses despite the fact that some 97% of the scientists that have studied the greenhouse effect have the science to back up their claims. Simply maddening!

 

[havok585]

I looked into Thorium and was pretty fascinated as well. For awhile I wondered why it wasn't used very much (excluding pro-uranium politics). However I came across an article that explained the reason it's not being used is because of the extreme toxicity of the leftover waste, much more than that of uranium. Either that or it produces much more waste, can't remember which. Could be a valid explanation. The water burning engine is interesting though I've never heard of that.

The thing with UF4 is that, as used in these new reactors there is no waste because it serves as the "coolant" & conductor. It is not the principle fuel so it dosen't degrade. As far as handling the waste, unlike uranium rods or plutonium gases, it can be processed out as is being done at the Paducah, KY facility where they have the majority of it stored. Don't quote me, but if memory serves they said there is enough UF4 and UF 6 at Paducah to power all the needs of the USA for some 10,000 years, which is another item that floors me. We have all this potential, yet we have simply ignored it! Kind of on par with our new Secretary of the EPA that says he disputes the science behind the greenhouse gasses despite the fact that some 97% of the scientists that have studied the greenhouse effect have the science to back up their claims. Simply maddening!

"we" dont ignore it, the bought politicians, CEO's ignore it because OPEC has them by their balls.

 

[Uncle Al]

"we" dont ignore it, the bought politicians, CEO's ignore it because OPEC has them by their balls.

OPEC????? LOL