WRONG GRID?: China is building an electricity grid focused on coal rather than renewables, which will make it hard for the country to meet its greenhouse gas-emission reduction goals.
Image: flickr/practicalowl
China will fail to meet its carbon and energy intensity targets unless it makes dramatic changes to its electricity grid, a groundbreaking new report finds.
The study, two years in the making, finds that China's grid is its "Achilles' heel," said lead author and Energy Transition Research Institute Research Director William Chandler. While newer and in many ways more technologically advanced than the U.S. grid, China's system is nevertheless being built to perpetuate the use of coal and large hydropower projects.
"The most important thing in the world for meeting carbon goals is what China does in its overall energy policy in the next 10 years. And the big hole in meeting those targets is in the electric power system," Chandler said in an exclusive interview with ClimateWire.
"They are in serious danger of losing the battle to meet their carbon and energy-intensity goals," he said. "Without strong new demand-side measures and strong new regulatory policies on the grid itself, they're not going to make it."
The report, "China Power: Benefits and Costs of the 'Strong, Smart Grid,'" draws on models of China's electric power system that a team of researchers built for the analysis, Chandler said. He noted that it was the first ever devised outside China to integrate both power supply and demand as well as economic drivers.
One key finding: China's engineers are developing a grid that is more likely to connect to coal than to renewables.
A $63B failure to communicate?
In the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark, climate change summit, China pledged to lower its carbon intensity 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade, while moving to non-fossil fuels for about 15 percent of its energy. It has since spelled out specific short-term targets, like providing 9.5 percent of the country's energy through renewables by 2015.
But unless those mandates are coupled with better planning and a more transparent system, the end result will be expensive and continue to have a big carbon footprint, according to the report.
By comparing the status quo with more aggressive low-carbon scenarios, researchers found that China is on a path to "squander" 400 billion yuan ($63.2 billion) annually by 2020, even as its coal-fired power plants emit "more carbon than the entire U.S. economy."
The Chinese government recently announced that it is building an 800-kilovolt power line to deliver wind and solar energy thousands of miles and that could eventually be the world's largest-capacity transmission line. According to the Transition Energy report, though, the near-exclusive focus on an ultra-high-voltage transmission network as the system's backbone fails to take the electricity consumer's role into account.
"There is little effort to connect grid and distribution communications and control systems to end users," the researchers wrote, warning that the cost and emissions from China's electric power generation could more than triple by 2030.
Regulation trumped by politics
Outside experts agree that China's grid is a serious weakness. Joanna Lewis, an assistant professor of science, technology and international affairs at Georgetown University, said there are "real concerns" about China's ability to meet its emission targets without smart grid improvements.
And Jigar Shah, president of the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE) and founder of First Solar -- who along with Lewis spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently -- noted that the United States also still has no real smart grid. The difference, he said, is that policymakers and industry leaders are working on it, while China is not.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentChina wont' meet Copenhagen goals...well,shiver me timbers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat type of idiot would think that Kyoto, Copenhagem, etc. are documents with more value than toilet paper?
A government made a promise it's not going to keep? That's par for the course, especially when it's the Chinese government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new system will work very well for all the nuclear and hydro they are building to replace coal. They have abandoned solar/wind as both are extremely expensive and can't work without extremely expensive 5 times sized transmission lines and fossil or hydro backup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith its massive hydro capacity storing up energy at night there is little need to move peak loads to off peak.
Let us hope they develop the nuclear technology that the world needs & that the ideologically hamstrung West shies away from. We will end up buying our reactors from them. Who would have thought that a new environmental religion in the western world would cause us to be swamped by a new capitalistic communism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With its massive hydro capacity storing up energy at night"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's just gibberish.
The Chinese power system is turning into a self-fed monster. Coal dealing with choke-points in supply, hydro coping with droughts, and nuke reacting to Fukushima - finding out the first implementation at an advanced national power-grid has weak points, is hardly exceptional or even surprising.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPremier Jiabao's recent reference to 'blind expansion' directed a finger at solar and wind, which are mostly export products. But it is really outlining central political concerns over the growing shortfall in power-supply commitments versus delivery.
What? You've heard of dam? What do you suppose happens to it at night if you are powering your nightime load with nuclear. What would you do with that build up during daytime peaks. Duh!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo perhaps explain more clearly, since I only recently learned of this, the idea is that when there is excess electricity available during low usage nighttime hours, water can be pumped back upstream, back into the dam. This then expends excess energy to pump water that can later be released to drive generators to meet peak period demand for electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure how well this works in practice, though, since it seems that downstream water availability could be a limiting factor. Perhaps additional reservoirs will have to be built downstream from the power generators to ensure the availability of water for pumping?
The Duh! goes to you for turning gibberish into gibber jabber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing new about using windpower to load upstream to a hydro-electric reservoir - it's expensive but it's allowance for the variable wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the notion of using hydro-electricity (or nuclear) to pump its own water back upstream is nonsense. The choke-point isn't the water - it's the turbine tunnels.
At night, coal-power is the variable that throttles back when demand drops.
Wrong. It is not only a matter of pumping water back up with off peak nuclear in particular but also off peak coal that can not be instantly throttled in either direction but that natural inflows to dams can be stored during non peak periods even when there are no pump back facilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong - it is the baseline non-variable sources that are used to pump the water back. Not the scaleable coal power-plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"natural inflows to dams can be stored during non peak periods even when there are no pump back facilities."
More gibberish.
As I understand, gas and perhaps to a lesser extent, coal fired power plants can to some extent be 'throttled' up & down to match varying demand for electrical power. Nuclear power plants cannot be dynamically controlled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Apparently special designed reservoirs are generally required for storage. In some cases water is pumped between two lakes at different altitudes. In others water is simply pumped to a higher altitude reservoir with a generation plant from a river (this seems extremely inefficient, as only pumped water can be used for power generation).
"They have abandoned solar/wind as both are extremely expensive and can't work without extremely expensive 5 times sized transmission lines and fossil or hydro backup."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many times do I have to ask you to provide sources for these claims? Could it be that you don't really have any?
What on earth are you talking about? Nuclear power plants are most economical if run at full power. If the infrastructure is available where there is also a hydro electric system on the same grid, during off peak times, water from a holding dam below the hydro plant can be pumped back up to the main reservoir. During peak consumption periods when demand for power is greater than the output from the nuclear or coal fired plant, the hydro plant is also run. Normally, there is also natural inflow to the main reservoir whether the hydro plant is running or not so by only running the hydro plant during peak periods the most water economic method is achieved, particularly if off peak water recycling can be acheived from nuke or coal generated base load that is in excess of power requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm certainly no expert, but unlike other power generation facilities, dams and reservoirs are built not just to generate electrical power. Their perhaps primary function is to manage water resources: control flooding and provide a reliable source of water. These and perhaps many other objectives must also be considered when releasing water from dams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
It describes facilities specifically built to address load balancing issues in predominately nuclear power grids.
China is always presenting with a more responsible appearance on the world stage, and we should trust China for it will have achieved its emission goal under the wire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it is pity that the U.S.A made no promise of the emission of carbon dioxide at the Copenhagen summit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power can be varied to some extent in all modern plants, but it is most economical to run them full-out 24/7. Newer Nuclear power plants are designed for load following, as they already do a lot in France, ship & sub reactors, of course, vary there power output as much as any fossil fuel power plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydro plants are usually designed with a Capacity Factor of about 50-60% since the water supply is typically seasonal. This usually means they can increase output during the daytime to supply peak power to some extent. There are limits and regulations regarding maintaining river flows so they just can't arbitrarily store water, even if they have a large reservoir. Most plants operate as run-of-the-river and don't store water. If Wind Energy is common as it is in Ontario & the Northwest USA, Hydro is spilled when Wind is high and demand is low, i.e. Spring, Nightime, Weekends - this is a total WASTE of valuable Energy - a major Energy Efficiency - and a consequence of significant Wind Power penetration of the Grid. This effectively reduces the REAL capacity factor of the Wind below the already low 15-30% level. The EIA & IEA have refused to incorporate this important data in their Wind Energy stats.
Pumped Hydro facilities are much rarer and normally used for Peak or Emergency Demand.
China is slowly replacing old coal plants with a mix of new coal, nukes and hydro.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AP-1000 nuke is designed to cycle 100%-50%-100% during the day. Since almost all the nuke cost is capital and almost none is fuel it, it is better to find offpeak uses for the nukes like car charging, heat/ice storage for building temperature control, desalinization and hydrogen production.
China has abandoned renewable integration into their grid.
http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=130&storyCode=2062180
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-12/07/content_14223281.htm
Well put - Thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can this article be taken seriously when it completely ignores nuclear power? Nuclear also works fine with a grid designed for coal plants and ... it is carbon-free. China is just getting geared up for a massive nuclear build-out. They are likely to be successful in developing a low-carbon advanced economy. It may take longer than everyone would like, but with wind and solar it will take forever (i.e. it won't happen at all).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydro dams are often used for peaking (not baseload) power. That is the case in California. And no, it does not involve pumping water uphill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost hydro plants have far more generating capacity than what could be sustained over an average year (i.e., the generators could let water through the dam far faster than the average accumulation rate for the reservoir).
Thus, when power demand is high, they run at full power, which results in lowering the level of the (vast) reservoir somewhat. In times of low demand, they mostly (or entirely) turn the generators off, thereby stopping the flow through the dam, which results in the reservoir refilling (rising).
With this approach, the huge reservoir is essentially used as a massive energy storage device; the only really practical and economical form of "electricity storage" there is. (Pumped storage schemes are much less economical.) As someone pointed out, this one effective means of mass energy storage may help buffer the output of (intermittent) renewable sources (e.g., wind) in the area.
As for the effects of intermittent (variable) dam flows on the river ecosystems below, many dams employ a small lower reservoir to smooth out such flows. When the dam is running at full power, the large-volume water flow is sent into the lower reservoir, as opposed to being released into the lower river (i.e., flooding it). Then the water is released, steadily, from the lower reservoir to the river. Since the level of the lower reservoir is much lower than that of the upper reservoir (and relaitvely close to that of the lower river), the variable power benefit is not reduced much.
Thanks, but doesn't demand for electrical power peak during the summer, when there is generally lower amounts of precipitation to fill the generator reservoir, or is this not the case in California?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt varies according to your locality & from year to year. The discussion re pumping water up to a hydro reservoir, in fact recycling it is not really relevant to this story about China but is of interest in general. Such schemes are quite rare & are only feasible in certain fairly unusual circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdayal as usual is just a nuke biased fool. I like more modern nukes but one has to know it's limitations.
Yet in his paragraph mentioning hydro solves the supposed problem of RE variability. No Seth?
Next point is only wind is variable and it's only a problem if you build big distant windfarms. Solar tracks demand very well when needed most in most areas as it tracks AC demand perfectly. Plus CSP can be added to thermal power plants to cut fuel use thus back up the backups.
Next hydro, biomass, CSP are on demand power so no backup is needed as they are the backup.
And for the last point demand is far more variable that RE supply even wind and they handle that well. So other than for those who are biased about RE, this isn't a problem.
To other questions here. Back pumped hydro is smart and uses whatever extra power available. Yes it uses coal, nuke extra power as available.
Next present nukes are either on or off and that takes days and millions of $ so they just don't do it. However if they scram it takes a Gw offline at once making a massive power shortage far worse than any RE would yet no one mentions it especialy Seth. Why Seth?
Coal takes 1-3 hrs to start and while can be varied, it isn't eff when it is.
And back ontopic China or the world won't be burning coal much longer as world supplies are dropping fast. China at present rates will be out of usable coal in 20-30 yrs.
We all need to build dams high in the mountains before all the ice melts to save the seasonal rains and let it out over the yr like the ice does now or a huge food shortage, other problems will accure.
Vast areas of the world do not have high rainfall, high mountains or consistent winds. Solar is useless without a backup system, is high maintenance particularly in arid & dusty regions. Even in clean areas collectors lose 25 percent efficiency if they are not regularly cleaned. This becomes practically impossible where water is scarce. It is a pipe dream to expect any of these technologies to work in developing countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure. They may actually hold most of the water until summer. Either that, or the dam us used more to even out daily demand variations, as opposed to seasonal variations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In its most recent World Energy Outlook, the IEA estimates that “economically exploitable” global coal reserves add up to 1 trillion tons, or “some 150 years of production in 2009.” That’s 3.2 times as much energy as natural gas can supply us with, and 2.5 times that of oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about the coal that’s not currently economically exploitable with current technology? Add that to the mix, and the world has some 21 trillion tons of coal buried underground … enough, in theory anyway, to keep meeting 2009-level demand for more than 3,000 year"
Source: http://www.greenbang.com/how-much-coal-is-left_21367.html
Confucius say "Listen not to what Chinese government say, watch instead what they do"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*Not a real quote, but does anyone doubt the truth in it?
I like how jerryd always compares Nuclear cost to Renewables cost by cherry picking the very worst case Nuclear site he can find, with his DIY home-made specials as his typical case for Renewables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure DIY's can buy surplus or end-run Solar cells, build their own panels, get expired battery banks from Phone exchanges, build their own racks, pick up an old beater for free and convert it to an EV for next to nothing.
Not playing fair! How about comparing worst case FOAK Nuclear in Florida @ $10k per kw with worst case Solar PV, according to the NREL, latest Ohio is $11.25 per watt peak at 13% CF = $87k per kw avg output. Only 9X worst case Nuclear.
As for DIY energy, if the authorities freed the atom, and allowed DIYs to buy low enriched uranium, then avg American household could supply their total heat & electricity needs for one year with ONE GRAM of uranium fuel, in your homemade fission reactor. Put that in your homemade pipe and smoke it!