2 ms·

When I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to solve for providing steady output in China from 100% renewable energy (wind/solar/battery

When I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to solve for providing steady output in China from 100% renewable energy (wind/solar/battery/hydrogen) at minimum cost using 2030 cost assumptions and 2011 weather data, the solar curtailment is just 7.3% (and most of the energy is coming from solar, not wind). If I remove hydrogen and solve again, solar curtailment increases to 16.7%. "200% overcapacity" is completely bogus.

noosphr 1y ago
It's their 2060 plan. Take it up with the CPP.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Press 'X' to doubt. Assuming someone actually told you that, I think you need to reevaluate the credibility of that source.
  - noosphr 1y ago
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498421000545 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266649842...
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      Nowhere in that document do I see a statement about 200% overcapacity. Could you point it out?
Steven_Vellon 1y ago
And what was the storage requirement? I just ran those parameters myself with China's 2.9 TW of constant electricity demand, and the storage requirement was over 70,000 GWh of battery storage. By comparison, global battery production is around 1,000 GWh per year.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  It was around 14 hours of battery storage. Seems reasonable. Realize that replacing all ICE road vehicles in the US with 70 kWh BEVs would require storage equal to ~40 hours of our average grid usage. The future is going to need large numbers of batteries, which is why China has been all in on this.
  - Steven_Vellon 1y ago
    14 hours of battery (~40 TWh for China) with the hydrogen storage or without? Because the calculator was reporting ~78,000 GWh battery storage with China's weather selected, and 2030 technology assumptions. I changed the spatial capacity factor from 1 to 2 and the battery storage requirement dropped down to 68 TWh, but still well above 40 TWH. Regardless, 14 hours of China's electricity demand is a whopping 40,600 GWh. By comparison, 2024's lithium ion battery production figure was 1.5 TWh [1]. Even assuming 100% of this went to EV's we're still talking about roughly 25 years worth of global battery production to fulfill only China's demand for storage in this model. As you point out, we still have loads of battery demand for EV adoption, so nowhere near 100% of production will be able to be diverted to grid storage. The scale of storage required to make intermittent sources viable without being backed by a dispatchable energy source really is tremendous, and this often gets overlooked in pushes for a fully renewable grid. 1. https://www.argusmedia.com/ja/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2644130-global-li-ion-battery-shipments-rise-in-2024-ev-tank https://www.argusmedia.com/ja/news-and-insights/latest-marke...
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      That was about the amount in both cases. Slightly more in the no-hydrogen case than otherwise. Hydrogen contributed only marginally. Yes, it's a lot of batteries. So what? It's not like the current battery production is some firm limit. If anything, the very large future demand ensures batteries will be driven down their experience curve, so the cost will be even lower than assumed. The world spends something like $10T per year on energy. Any replacement energy system is going to be a big thing. You need to make an argument that is more than you expressing fear of large numbers.
discordance 1y ago
Try that again with 99% renewable and it becomes much more reasonable with regards to over overcapacity. 1% non-renewable would be a very good outcome.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  One can enable "dispatchable 1" which is simple cycle gas turbines, and limit the total CO2 emission so that's at most 1% of the generation. Doing that, and with no hydrogen, solar curtailment is reduced by more than half, to 8.1%.

noosphr 1y ago

It's their 2060 plan. Take it up with the CPP.

pfdietz 1y ago
Press 'X' to doubt. Assuming someone actually told you that, I think you need to reevaluate the credibility of that source.
- noosphr 1y ago
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498421000545 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266649842...
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Nowhere in that document do I see a statement about 200% overcapacity. Could you point it out?

Steven_Vellon 1y ago

And what was the storage requirement? I just ran those parameters myself with China's 2.9 TW of constant electricity demand, and the storage requirement was over 70,000 GWh of battery storage. By comparison, global battery production is around 1,000 GWh per year.

pfdietz 1y ago
It was around 14 hours of battery storage. Seems reasonable. Realize that replacing all ICE road vehicles in the US with 70 kWh BEVs would require storage equal to ~40 hours of our average grid usage. The future is going to need large numbers of batteries, which is why China has been all in on this.
- Steven_Vellon 1y ago
  14 hours of battery (~40 TWh for China) with the hydrogen storage or without? Because the calculator was reporting ~78,000 GWh battery storage with China's weather selected, and 2030 technology assumptions. I changed the spatial capacity factor from 1 to 2 and the battery storage requirement dropped down to 68 TWh, but still well above 40 TWH. Regardless, 14 hours of China's electricity demand is a whopping 40,600 GWh. By comparison, 2024's lithium ion battery production figure was 1.5 TWh [1]. Even assuming 100% of this went to EV's we're still talking about roughly 25 years worth of global battery production to fulfill only China's demand for storage in this model. As you point out, we still have loads of battery demand for EV adoption, so nowhere near 100% of production will be able to be diverted to grid storage. The scale of storage required to make intermittent sources viable without being backed by a dispatchable energy source really is tremendous, and this often gets overlooked in pushes for a fully renewable grid. 1. https://www.argusmedia.com/ja/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2644130-global-li-ion-battery-shipments-rise-in-2024-ev-tank https://www.argusmedia.com/ja/news-and-insights/latest-marke...
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    That was about the amount in both cases. Slightly more in the no-hydrogen case than otherwise. Hydrogen contributed only marginally. Yes, it's a lot of batteries. So what? It's not like the current battery production is some firm limit. If anything, the very large future demand ensures batteries will be driven down their experience curve, so the cost will be even lower than assumed. The world spends something like $10T per year on energy. Any replacement energy system is going to be a big thing. You need to make an argument that is more than you expressing fear of large numbers.

discordance 1y ago

Try that again with 99% renewable and it becomes much more reasonable with regards to over overcapacity. 1% non-renewable would be a very good outcome.

pfdietz 1y ago
One can enable "dispatchable 1" which is simple cycle gas turbines, and limit the total CO2 emission so that's at most 1% of the generation. Doing that, and with no hydrogen, solar curtailment is reduced by more than half, to 8.1%.