Climate Change and Renewable Energy News and Discussion

Staedler

Junior Member
Registered Member
How viable would it be for China to go completely renewable by 2050?

Solar and wind are definitely the gamechangers here. If their adoption grows fast enough the world might simply give up on nuclear and fusion all together.

A China with a grid of distributed solar + sodium battery banks for peak loads would be invincible in terms of energy security
Why would China want to abandon resiliency afforded by diverse power generation and put all their eggs into the solar-wind basket?

Just like how climate change has caused droughts in Sichuan which basically shut off hydropower for some time, wind/cloud patterns can change drastically in the future too. What happens when areas that were windy or sunny stop being windy/sunny? Batteries won't last a long-term change. There's no reason for fission/fusion to not be present in the energy mix on some level.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
How viable would it be for China to go completely renewable by 2050?

Solar and wind are definitely the gamechangers here. If their adoption grows fast enough the world might simply give up on nuclear and fusion all together.

A China with a grid of distributed solar + sodium battery banks for peak loads would be invincible in terms of energy security
After this summer, I think that would be very hard. You really need backup non-renewable power source like nuclear plants in the event that water evaporates or not have enough wind or other factors. At this point, I don't think there can be enough energy storage to go through another heat wave like the one we had in China this summer. As such, any solution will need nuclear and possibly the occasional natural gas. Maybe in another 20 years, we will get better at capturing carbon and re-utilizing them in productive manners.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
interesting, I have a German report from 2022 that claims 1 year energy payback which is very good already, and they used only Chinese panels (for relevance and because SunPower uses CdTe which is more expensive to set up, has materials processing issues and may encounter regulatory and RoHS restrictions in Europe and Asia).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So EROEI is OK, still not at thermal power levels though. Also scale is limiting the scale of PV deployment at ~5 GW per year for all of Germany vs. a single gas fired plant that can produce 1 GW, plus the capacity factor of ~10% vs ~60% for gas making 5 GW electricity of solar equal to 1 GW electricity of gas.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you look at a global insolation map (below), you at how little Germany gets. Yet they still have a 1 year energy payback for solar.

As for scale, solar panels in the Sahara plus transmission lines is the way to go, like the Australia-Singapore solar project.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
How viable would it be for China to go completely renewable by 2050?

Solar and wind are definitely the gamechangers here. If their adoption grows fast enough the world might simply give up on nuclear and fusion all together.

A China with a grid of distributed solar + sodium battery banks for peak loads would be invincible in terms of energy security
a few key concepts: capacity factor, instantaneous supply/demand balance, baseload, dispatch, grid inertia.

solar and wind power is given as instantaneous power. a 50 kW rated solar panel WILL produce 50 kW when the sun is bright and overhead. But that's not its average power. The average power is given by the capacity factor C = (real average power / nominal instantaneous power).

Nuclear capacity factor is ~90%. Fossil fuel is ~60%. Hydro is ~40%. Wind is ~30%. Solar is ~10-20%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So this is not just a storage issue, it is one of outright power production. 1 GW of nuclear is 900 MW. 1 GW of solar is actually 100 MW. But it also means that nuclear is very slow to change. It is always on.

In general, the power produced by the grid is vast and completely outstrips the capability of storage medium to accept (with two very important exceptions). It must have instantaneous supply/demand balance. A massive battery bank can store maybe a few MWH? A few spins of a single wind turbine produces MWH. But supply/demand fluctuates throughout the day and may not follow production of i.e. solar or wind. So how do you make up the difference? Well, you typically use slow changing, high capacity factor power generation as baseload, the minimum load that occurs throughout the day i.e. at 3 AM. When demand is at a minimum, your grid runs solely on baseload. This is usually coal or nuclear which are slow to turn on/off but have high capacity factors.

When you have increased demand as the day goes on, you start turning on or dispatching other power sources that are fast reacting. You can turn hydro on/off at any time - just open the gate valve. You can turn gas turbines on/off too. You can turn solar and wind on/off by connecting or disconnecting their output. The marginal price you can get for this electricity is higher because you're selling into the grid as demand increases. When demand falls, prices fall, and you can just quit the market.

Now what about storage? Batteries are tiny compared to the storage of 2 major sources: water reservoirs and grid inertia. Power comes from, in almost all cases, rotating turbines (water, steam, gas). These turbines generate electromotive force (EMF) through a rotating magnetic field creating current as well known in the Maxwell's equations. These turbines are very heavy, spin very fast and thus have substantial angular momentum stored, so small fluctations in load don't do much, because it just slows or speeds the turbine a microscopic amount. This phenomena is called "grid inertia" and is extremely important because this serves as instantaneous energy storage to balance out all the grid fluctuations.

Why does wind have higher capacity factor than solar? One reason is that wind blows quite a bit throughout the day, but also because it has grid inertia and solar doesn't. Wind turbines keep spinning after the wind stops and so produce a smooth power curve. But since this is unpowered, it eventually stops and no longer contributes to grid inertia.

In general you need tons of grid inertia to smooth out the fluctuations. This means you cannot escape high capacity factor, turbine based power sources - coal, nuclear and hydro.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
a few key concepts: capacity factor, instantaneous supply/demand balance, baseload, dispatch, grid inertia.

solar and wind power is given as instantaneous power. a 50 kW rated solar panel WILL produce 50 kW when the sun is bright and overhead. But that's not its average power. The average power is given by the capacity factor C = (real average power / nominal instantaneous power).

Nuclear capacity factor is ~90%. Fossil fuel is ~60%. Hydro is ~40%. Wind is ~30%. Solar is ~10-20%.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



So this is not just a storage issue, it is one of outright power production. 1 GW of nuclear is 900 MW. 1 GW of solar is actually 100 MW. But it also means that nuclear is very slow to change. It is always on.

In general, the power produced by the grid is vast and completely outstrips the capability of storage medium to accept (with two very important exceptions). It must have instantaneous supply/demand balance. A massive battery bank can store maybe a few MWH? A few spins of a single wind turbine produces MWH. But supply/demand fluctuates throughout the day and may not follow production of i.e. solar or wind. So how do you make up the difference? Well, you typically use slow changing, high capacity factor power generation as baseload, the minimum load that occurs throughout the day i.e. at 3 AM. When demand is at a minimum, your grid runs solely on baseload. This is usually coal or nuclear which are slow to turn on/off but have high capacity factors.

When you have increased demand as the day goes on, you start turning on or dispatching other power sources that are fast reacting. You can turn hydro on/off at any time - just open the gate valve. You can turn gas turbines on/off too. You can turn solar and wind on/off by connecting or disconnecting their output. The marginal price you can get for this electricity is higher because you're selling into the grid as demand increases. When demand falls, prices fall, and you can just quit the market.

Now what about storage? Batteries are tiny compared to the storage of 2 major sources: water reservoirs and grid inertia. Power comes from, in almost all cases, rotating turbines (water, steam, gas). These turbines generate electromotive force (EMF) through a rotating magnetic field creating current as well known in the Maxwell's equations. These turbines are very heavy, spin very fast and thus have substantial angular momentum stored, so small fluctations in load don't do much, because it just slows or speeds the turbine a microscopic amount. This phenomena is called "grid inertia" and is extremely important because this serves as instantaneous energy storage to balance out all the grid fluctuations.

Why does wind have higher capacity factor than solar? One reason is that wind blows quite a bit throughout the day, but also because it has grid inertia and solar doesn't. Wind turbines keep spinning after the wind stops and so produce a smooth power curve. But since this is unpowered, it eventually stops and no longer contributes to grid inertia.

In general you need tons of grid inertia to smooth out the fluctuations. This means you cannot escape high capacity factor, turbine based power sources - coal, nuclear and hydro.

Let's say the US car fleet eventually goes all electric. At any time, we could expect at least 100 million cars to be plugged in, and to be plugged into a minimum 3KW connection.

That's 300GW of variable load that can be turned on and off, depending on how much electricity is available.

It's also 300GW of dispatchable capacity if the grid requires electricity.

300GW represents a quarter of US current generation capacity, and is far in excess of any requirement to smooth out the grid.

We also see dedicated grid stabilisation batteries being deployed these days.

---

So the instantaneous balance is not the issue. It's the balance over periods exceeding 2 hours which is the issue.

---

In an ideal world, you would have nuclear for nighttime baseload plus enough wind for overnight vehicle charging.

Then during the daytime, you have enough solar for normal usage plus vehicle charging.

And in the evening with peak demand and no solar generation, the typical US household only uses 10 Kwh per day, but a vehicle battery has 50+ KWh of available capacity.

That way, your wind and solar electricity costs less than coal. The nuclear costs a lot more or just a little more than coal, depending on where you are. The cost of batteries is already paid for because electric vehicles are cheaper to operate than petrol cars.

You have hydro, gas and coal - just for emergency generation for periods over 2 hours.

That way, you should end up with lower energy costs than today
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Let's say the US car fleet eventually goes all electric. At any time, we could expect at least 100 million cars to be plugged in, and to be plugged into a minimum 3KW connection.

That's 300GW of variable load that can be turned on and off, depending on how much electricity is available.

It's also 300GW of dispatchable capacity if the grid requires electricity.

300GW represents a quarter of US current generation capacity, and is far in excess of any requirement to smooth out the grid.

We also see dedicated grid stabilisation batteries being deployed these days.

---

So the instantaneous balance is not the issue. It's the balance over periods exceeding 2 hours which is the issue.

---

In an ideal world, you would have nuclear for nighttime baseload plus enough wind for overnight vehicle charging.

Then during the daytime, you have enough solar for normal usage plus vehicle charging.

And in the evening with peak demand and no solar generation, the typical US household only uses 10 Kwh per day, but a vehicle battery has 50+ KWh of available capacity.

That way, your wind and solar electricity costs less than coal. The nuclear costs a lot more or just a little more than coal, depending on where you are. The cost of batteries is already paid for because electric vehicles are cheaper to operate than petrol cars.

You have hydro, gas and coal - just for emergency generation for periods over 2 hours.

That way, you should end up with lower energy costs than today
you should first understand the grid as it exists today, why it was designed that way, the relevant parameters of a power grid and the careful thought that went into a century worth of electrical engineering.

Note that none of my post contained any opinion or "shoulds" or "woulds".
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
you should first understand the grid as it exists today, why it was designed that way, the relevant parameters of a power grid and the careful thought that went into a century worth of electrical engineering.

Note that none of my post contained any opinion or "shoulds" or "woulds".

I do understand how grids work and how they are designed. Have you ever been in a grid control station or worked in electricity generation/transmission companies?

But I can also see how the era of [centralised electricity generation with dumb demand] is being replaced with [decentralised generation and consumption which automatically load-shifts].

The advent of electric cars will double electricity consumption but this demand can load shift according to electricity supply. And the batteries can store electricity for later use as well.

Balancing instantaneous demand and supply simply will not be an issue.

As mentioned previously, we already see grid batteries used for short-term energy storage and also grid/frequency management with an instant response.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
You asserted that the reason solar is not an option because of the requirement for "tons of grid inertia to smooth out the fluctuations. This means you cannot escape high capacity factor, turbine based power sources - coal, nuclear and hydro"

I've pointed out that electricity demand will be able to load-shift in response to available demand, as car batteries will eventually account for half of all electricity demand. At the same time, storage will be used to smooth out fluctuations, from grid batteries, car batteries and home storage batteries.

On virtual power plants from vehicle batteries and home storage batteries, we can see trials from Tesla and other companies in various countries. It's just a matter of scaling up and letting the technology mature.

Also look at the case studies on the Tesla storage batteries in Australia which provide frequency stabilisation and also emergency power.
You don't really need that much grid inertia anymore because batteries can do the job faster. Hawaii is another example.

---

IRENA expect solar costs to drop to $0.05 per KW by 2030, which is roughly 4x lower than today's prices. That's a nice to have, but solar electricity costs are already really low anyway at 2-4cents/KWh

As I stated before, storage is the biggest issue to greater use of solar electricity.
BNEF also expect battery costs to drop in half by 2030, but if I look at the latest developments, I expect we'll see this happen by 2035.

So if I look at the overall situation in the future:
1. solar can account for a minimum of 50% of all electricity consumption, just from charging car batteries for transportation use.
2. solar could account for another 20%?? of electricity consumption during the day, and when combined with battery storage.


Various articles below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Just realized that the progress of Chinese renewables is similar to another event from history.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
heard that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was fond of embarking on enterprises, so with the intention of causing its energies to be dissipated and in order to prevent it from making an attack to the east, it accordingly dispatched a water engineer named
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to give controversial advice to Qin by making it excavate a canal from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
west of Mount Zhong as far as Hukou, from where it was to go east along the Northern Mountains and flow into the Luo. It would be more than 300
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
long, and the intention would be to use it to irrigate the fields. When it was half completed the true purpose was realized, and Qin intended to kill Zheng Guo, but Zheng Guo said: ‘At first I was acting in order to cause dissension, but when the canal is completed it will surely be a benefit to Qin.’ Qin thought this was true, so in the end had the progress on the canal continued. When the canal did make further progress, it was used to cause the stagnant waters to flow, and irrigate the salty land over an area of more than 40,000 qing, so that the harvest totalled one zhong per mou. Thereupon the area within the passes was turned into fertile but uncultivated land, and there were no calamitous years, and thus Qin became rich and strong, and in the end unified the feudal states. Because of this it was called the Zheng Guo Canal.
 
Top