DEC 31

Planned solar projects in the U.S. seemed to be one-upping each other throughout 2008, ending with the enormous planned 500 MW facility in San Luis Obispo CA. But now the Chinese are in on the game and, surprise, they're even bigger...planning a solar project twice as large as any currently planned, with a capacity of a full gigawatt.

The project is planned for the Qaidam Basin, a large, sunny desert and The China Technology Development Corporation just signed a deal with local officials to start working on the project.

The project will use only photovoltaic cells (no solar thermal) though it looks like some of the solar cells will be silicon, and others will be thin film. Unfortunately, there's no word on who'll be supplying the panels, but we assume it will be one of the several Chinese companies currently producing solar panels. We also assume that they're using both thin-film and crystalline cells because there would be no other way to get that many solar panels together.

The first phase of the project will bring 30 megawatts of solar power to China, costing roughly $150M and beginning construction in 2009. Whether or not the next phases will be completed, we imagine, depend on the success of this first installation.

This is, of course, fantastic news. Compared to the scale of other solar projects, this is truly massive. Unfortunately, compared to the scale of fossil fuel projects in China, it's minuscule. China reportedly added around 90 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2006 alone.

This, my friends....is a small step on a very long road.

Via Venturebeat and Earth2Tech

Comments (17)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

THANK YOU
written by EDDnorris, December 31, 2008

I don't care how childish it might be that anyone is making advancements not to advance the world's environment but to one up another culture, but as long as the advancements are made i'll be happy.

PSST!!! US government, china tagged us back, you gonna let them win???

PS: thank you china

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Typo
written by EV, December 31, 2008

The first phase of the project will bring 30 gigawatts of solar power to China, costing roughly $150M and beginning construction in 2009.

I think you mean megawatts. If 30GW only cost $150M, everyone would be using it right now as it would be cheaper than Coal.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Whoops!
written by Hank, December 31, 2008

Thanks for catching that one! Megawatts indeed...Fixed...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Miltowny, December 31, 2008

I remember... when America was exporting all the goods to Europe for a low cost (tobacco, cotton, etc). Then.... all the sudden America became the hip place to be. China sure has been making a bunch of our stuff... and taking a lot of our money.

Maybe the next great place to live will be China. They will just open up the curtain one day and we'll be jealous. Maybe.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Competition is Good
written by Steven Jones, January 01, 2009

There are 2 basic reasons why China is doing this-money and self reliance. No one wants to or should be dependent upon some fanatical country(ies) or dictator(s) who controls the worlds oil supply. We as individuals can do the same. The technology exists to enable us to be independent and save money on energy costs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jim, January 01, 2009

Ethanol Now!
Ethanol from non food crops planted on 5% of unusable farmland would meet the U.S. transport needs.
Ethanol is quicker than solar, wind,new oil drilling etc. 6months to get 1200 gals off 1 acre.
Little infrastructure is needed, costs are low.
500b spent on ethanol plants meets the worlds transport needs.
Ethanol reduces greenhouse gasses
Read Alcohol can be a gas also on YouTube

• 
• +0
• 
• 

lolz
written by poopdick, January 01, 2009

Ethanol because the agriculture industry isnt giving it to us in the rear hard enough!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Free xbox 360 Games, January 01, 2009

wow that's interesting. I can't wait to see what the outcome of all of this.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by dave, January 01, 2009

"Ethanol from non food crops planted on 5% of unusable farmland would meet the U.S. transport needs."
OK I'll bite-What's"unusable"farmland?If it's unusable how can it be "farm"land?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

just say no to ethanol
written by james, January 01, 2009

The ethanol cycle is not thermodynamically efficient enough to be the true solution. So much energy is wasted in growing crops and turning the cellulose and sugar into ethanol. It's generally a bad idea and only a stopgap solution. Renewables, tidal, solar, space based, geothermal, fusion research, nuclear fission, and conservation... Don't give in to the agricultural subsidies lobby!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Tom Jolly, January 06, 2009

I remember reading that if you compare the production of energy on an acre covered with solar panels vs an acre covered with ethanol-plants, the solar panels produce something like 100 times as much energy for the total cost. Ethanol is a waste of time - to say nothing of using up farmland. Oh, yeah - it also produces CO2.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

How is this a good thing?
written by Marc, January 07, 2009

How is this project good thing?

Most environmental problems tend to stem from our nature of excess... and this is what this project sounds like.

What are the efficiencies arising from concentrating a massive volume of PV cells in one place? Will these efficiencies outweigh the cost of destroying a massive expanse of desert eco-system and potentially altering the micro-climate of the area? Why not capitalise on one of the major advantages of PV being distributed generation? What about the environmental costs of producing these PV cells? What about the impact on global silicon prices?

This project seems like poorly planned one-upmanship.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Re:How is this a good thing?
written by PacoBell, January 08, 2009

Marc, while distributed generation sounds good on the surface, you have to ask yourself how many kWh/m²/day of solar radiation does each structure receive? (Google "solar radiation map") Photovoltaics are only really cost effective when the power generation capabilities of the panels outweigh the cost of manufacturing them (both in terms of financial expenditure and environmental impact) and their ROI in respect to their MTBF. Current technologies, be they thin-film or otherwise, simply can't produce a positive ROI today. Fortunately, my brother (along with many other scientists, I'm sure) are doing the fundamental research necessary to improve photovoltaic efficiencies to the point where they make sense financially. The last thing homeowners need in this depressed economy is yet another net money sink.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Marc, January 09, 2009

PacoBell, I won't pretend to be an expert in this area, but I would suggest that, based on your comments, my question and final statements are still valid. This project would not appear to make financial or environmental sense.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Speaking of "excesses"...
written by Mary Helen, January 14, 2009

The true excess on our planet is an excess of human bodies, over 6.5 billion of us. We need this, and we need that, and thus we create a dearth (scarcity) of all Earth's resources. And an excess of waste and pollution (check out the huge swirling mass of plastic bag waste out in a vast area of the Pacific Ocean.)
Why do we need any more humans? We truly need to take on the challenge of stemming the flood of human babies to a small enough number that we can truly support, nurture, love and develop. While we are thinking about making a more energy sufficient world, let's try to remember for whom we are making this energy and why. As we continue to manufacture more and more humans, we will constantly need to manufacture more and more of everything that humans need, want or desire. It surely would help if people put a little more consideration into planning their families and each family did its part to limit their production of babies as a thoughtful and loving contribution to the health of planet Earth and all of the other humans and other species of plants and animals which have to share the space with us. What is wrong with us that we refuse to pay attention to this huge excess of humans?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Population control?
written by Ubiquitous, January 14, 2009

Population control is extremely difficult. The only stable decrease in populations are in Western countries that have already industrialized. How can we stablize the populations that are surging in non-industrialized countries? The challenges posed by Religion, Culture, lack of education, healthcare and contraceptives, not to mention the fact that primarily agrarian socieites will always need lots of children (as workers, just like our society did) will continue this population surge well beyond the Earth's carrying capacity. Beyond natural causes like disease, famine, etc... there is little effective measures are reducing the number of "human bodies" exploding onto the planet. Look at the population projections. I really see no way to control birth rates in sovereign countries like India, outside of China's radical infanticides.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Not to mention
written by Ubiquitous, January 14, 2009

that economic growth and business in our world is almost entirely dependent on ever increasing amounts of humans and consumers. Asia in particular has little incentive (short-term) to decrease their populations when the growth is driving their economic boom. More workers = Cheaper labor = more competitive = more money = more energy = more damage to the enviroment

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment