
China Is Wasting Less Solar and Wind Power - andrewhbrook
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003939/china-is-wasting-less-solar-and-wind-power
======
uranusjr
For those confused by the awkward title like myself, the sentence would finish
with _than China previous did_. It wasted 17% (2017), now 5%.

~~~
herogreen
5% seems very very low. I do no think it includes the wire heat waste that are
common to coal and nuclear, because according to this:
[https://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-
energy...](https://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy-
efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/) "The overall losses
between the power plant and consumers is then in the range between 8 and 15%."
(I do not think the numbers have changed that much in 6 years).

~~~
rat9988
This is a different topic. This is a waste due to the production not meeting
demand. The waste you talk about, is included in the demand usually.

~~~
sandworm101
I think you have it reversed. This is waste due to _demand not meeting
production_. They had solar and wind capacity that wasn't being fully
utilized.

~~~
rat9988
Nice catch, I wrote too fast for my own good.

------
onepointsixC
China has poor geography for both solar and wind. It would be better served
ramping up it's Nuclear plans as well as turning to natural gas.

Solar Density Map:
[https://globalsolaratlas.info/](https://globalsolaratlas.info/)

Wind Density Map:
[https://globalwindatlas.info/](https://globalwindatlas.info/)

~~~
Rexxar
Tibet seems perfect for solar

~~~
onepointsixC
Tibet is the one place where it would make sense but only 3 million live in
Tibet. There is over a billion Chinese citizens who are roughly three thousand
kilometers away.

------
aerophilic
Is anyone aware of what the maximum economically feasible transmission
distance is for power lines?

I ask as they specifically cite the need for transmission from west to east
(to power hungry cities).

I have also wondered how efficient can those transmission towers be.

Anyone have any knowledge? Is it reasonable to expect power to be generated on
one side of China, and have it used on the other side?

Edit: qualified maximum distance to economically feasible maximum distance

~~~
adrianN
This article here contains some helpful information:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC)

~~~
snaky
> China is the global test bed for ultra-high voltage (UHV) transmission
> lines, a technology that can carry electricity across vast distances with
> much greater efficiency than the high voltage lines that you’re probably
> used to seeing.

> Since 2006, it’s built 19 of these multi-billion-dollar lines, stretching
> almost 30,000 kilometres and supplying 4% of national electricity demand.
> For comparison, no other country has a single UHV line in full commercial
> operation.

> But China’s enthusiasm for UHV is waning. The technology is beset by
> conflicts of interest between grid companies and central and local
> governments. The lines themselves are underperforming, and more recent
> projects are coming online amid a period of electricity generation
> overcapacity.

> This means that approvals for new lines have slowed, and grid companies are
> unlikely to meet their targets for new ones.

[https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10376-S...](https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10376-Sparks-
fly-over-ultra-high-voltage-power-lines)

------
adrianN
15% renewables by 2020... that's not a very ambitious plan given the fact that
we have less than ten years to get to a completely carbon neutral world
economy.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
This is China, a huge, rapidly developing country so we need to keep in mind
that the overall energy production and consumption will also seriously
increase during that period.

In addition, currently it is not feasible to rely only on wind and solar
because these are unpredictable sources. Which also means that a target (15%)
here is probably an average and that the installed capacity has thus to be
much higher.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It could work with a flexible fossil fuel like natural gas. Unfortunately
China doesn’t have many NG resources.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
They are investing in nuclear power.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
No? The investment on nuclear power has been slowed down. But ironically, the
competition from cheaper solar and wind power is one of the factors, so it
might not necessarily be bad though.

* China is losing its taste for nuclear power

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-
its-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-
for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/)

HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18675453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18675453)

~~~
jabl
Or the followup a few months later by the same author:
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612872/chinas-nuclear-
hia...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612872/chinas-nuclear-hiatus-may-
be-coming-to-an-end/)

And while we're on the topic of posting technologyreview links,
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613498/global-
renewable-g...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613498/global-renewable-
growth-has-stalled-and-thats-terrible-news/)

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Thanks for posting the follow-ups I've missed. It's bad news indeed, the
situation is getting far less optimistic.

