|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
240 days ago
|
|
> It's terrible for China, less than 15%. 55.4 GW per 277 GW is an (annual) capacity factor of 20%, so the response here is "yes, and?" > And more importantly, you can have _weeks_ with essentially zero solar power when you need it most. Half the country is a mid-latitude desert. What makes you think the whole country has "weeks" with zero solar? And it does have to be the whole country in this case, because one thing a centrally planned economy can do well is joining up the infrastructure, which in this case means "actually make the power grid the USA and the EU keep wringing their hands over". |
|
The "whole country" is irrelevant. You can't transmit arbitrary amounts of power across the large geographic areas, most of energy has to be generated in a reasonably close proximity.
> And it does have to be the whole country in this case, because one thing a centrally planned economy can do well is joining up the infrastructure
Transmission lines are expensive, regardless of your ideology.