what percentage of the human genome is MAPQ=0? When doing Illumina 2x150bp sequencing of genomic DNA, and after aligning the reads to GRCh38, what percentage of the non-N fraction of the human genome is MAPQ=0? This is, what part corresponds to regions that can't be uniquely mapped with 2x150bp reads.

And, how many genes are affected by MAPQ=0 regions?

I presume the numbers will dance around depending on fragment sizes, read quality, etc. but I am happy with some starting numbers.
Mapping quality is determined by the repetitiveness of the genome, the sequencing error rate, insert size, the capability of the mapper and the nasty heuristics behind the mapper. MAPQ=0 to one mapper is not necessarily MAPQ=0 to another.

That said, I get what you mean. You want to know the uniqueness/repetitiveness. It is still hard if you want to get a useful answer. For 150bp reads, each reference position is covered by 150 reads. What if 50 of them have no other exact hits elsewhere, but the rest 100 have? Is this position a repeat or not? In addition, what if the 50 are unique only because one mismatch? If there is a variant at that mismatch, the 50 would become repeats or mapped elsewhere.

My preference is to say a position is "unique" under k-long reads if over k/2 reads overlapping the position have no other perfect or 1-mismatch/1-gap hits elsewhere in the genome. Under this definition, 79.3% of human genome are unique for 35bp reads. 92.4% for 75bp reads. I don't have the number for 150bp reads. I guess it will be around 95%. Empirically, 94-95% of human genome is callable with 100bp paired-end reads.

As to other measurements, the most common one is the fraction of reads that has an exact hit elsewhere. You can use Fabio's method. It gives a good enough estimate once you simulate over 1 million reads. This fraction is around 86% for 35bp reads and 95% for 75bp reads, as I remember. The problem with this approach is this fraction is not very informative to variant calling due to the issues I talked about. Another way is to use RepeatMasker. It is worse. RepeatMasker masks 50% of human genome, but excludes segmental duplications where short reads can't be confidently mapped.