The state of power generation in China

[OVERKILL]

There's a great little Wiki on the state of power generation in China found here:

Chinese Electric Sector

As a nation, China has 1,505,000MW of installed generating capacity. This consists of (in order):

1. Coal: 907,000MW
2. Hydro Electric: 300,000MW
3. Therm/NG/Bio: 135,000MW
4. Wind: 90,000MW
5. Solar: 28,000MW
6. Nuclear: 21,000MW

These contribute, in GWh (in order):
1. Coal: 3,959,000
2. Hydro Electric: 896,000
3. Therm/NG/Bio: 201,000
4. Wind: 140,000
5. Nuclear: 124,000
6. Solar: 9,000

We can break the contribution down, in GWh per MW of installed capacity thusly (in order):

1. Nuclear: 5.90
2. Coal: 4.36
2. Hydro Electric: 2.99
3. Therm/NG/Bio: 1.49
4. Wind: 1.56
6. Solar: 0.32

Which gives us a rough idea as to the efficiency (relative to installed capacity) of these sources of generation.

To put some perspective on these numbers, in 2015, Australia generated 248,000GWh of electricity to power the entire country. The Province of Ontario used 137,000GWh.

 

[BTW]

Great, they'll have plenty of energy when and if they ever populate all the ghost cities...

 

[OVERKILL]

What blows my mind is all the talk about China and solar/wind, but in reality, they generate, the vast, VAST majority of their power with coal. Bringing up a distant 2nd place is hydro electric. Solar is barely on the map in terms of annual generation in GWh.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What blows my mind is all the talk about China and solar/wind, but in reality, they generate, the vast, VAST majority of their power with coal. Bringing up a distant 2nd place is hydro electric. Solar is barely on the map in terms of annual generation in GWh.


1MW of capacity, over 8760 hours in a year gives 8.76GWh maximum possible generation from that 1MW.

The Solar and wind obviously are generating at 100% of what they can harvest, minus reliability issues, minus shutdowns.

The nukes, coal, gas, (most) hydro, and (some/most) thermal/biomass are schedulable (can deliver on demand), so will lose possible MW through reliability (5% or thereabouts), shutdowns (5-10%), and the fact that they can be turned down when prices/demand are low.

 

[bvance554]

You must have missed HTSS_TR's post about how cheap and awesome solar is now.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
You must have missed HTSS_TR's post about how cheap and awesome solar is now.


I think there is a middle ground.

Solar and wind will never replace Fossil,hydro,nuclear Power plants anytime soon because energy storage is not that cheap.

But it can certainly help out during peak hours (solar esp.)

I'd like to see a shingle type or roll type solar panel on roofs in very sunny areas.
would offset their A/C use somewhat.

Many areas is makes no sense.. due to trees or weather conditions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What blows my mind is all the talk about China and solar/wind, but in reality, they generate, the vast, VAST majority of their power with coal. Bringing up a distant 2nd place is hydro electric. Solar is barely on the map in terms of annual generation in GWh.


1MW of capacity, over 8760 hours in a year gives 8.76GWh maximum possible generation from that 1MW.

The Solar and wind obviously are generating at 100% of what they can harvest, minus reliability issues, minus shutdowns.

The nukes, coal, gas, (most) hydro, and (some/most) thermal/biomass are schedulable (can deliver on demand), so will lose possible MW through reliability (5% or thereabouts), shutdowns (5-10%), and the fact that they can be turned down when prices/demand are low.


The wind power seems to be, at face value, a much greater contributor (based on the numbers above) than solar. Solar is cheap. A set of panels is far less money than a wind turbine.

There is no denying China burns an absolutely incredible amount of coal and that going forward, this is going to change. There is a lot of focus being put on wind/solar, but looking at these numbers, I don't see how they can be anything but a complement to other generating means. I know they are working on building a few more nuclear plants but my impression of that scope at this point is that it will be nowhere near enough to significantly impact these figures.

Something to watch for sure. I am quite interested in how they plan on phasing out all that coal-generated base-load capacity and how it will be replaced.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
You must have missed HTSS_TR's post about how cheap and awesome solar is now.
ROFL

 

[HerrStig]

In watching various programs about China I noted air conditioners and TVs in dwellings with dirt floors.

 

[Nate1979]

The posted numbers are from 2014. For Solar that was in the early stage of the ramp in capacity in China who today has 43GW installed capacity, almost double in 2 years. China's 5 year plan is to install 15-20GW of capacity each year to reach 140GW by 2020. They have passed Germany the the US in installed capacity.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/

In 2015 China had 145GW of wind capacity installed, also drastically increased from the previous numbers as well the world leader in installed capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

Nuclear has expanded to 28.8GW with planned reactors in progress of 22.1GW to reach 58GW by 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

At least for installed capacity nuclear can't keep up with the growth of solar and wind power (but actual contribution would be different as pointed out in OP).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979

At least for installed capacity nuclear can't keep up with the growth of solar and wind power (but actual contribution would be different as pointed out in OP).


Yup, it will be interesting to see the list when it is updated with some 2015 or 2016 figures to factor in the growth. Obviously the efficiency isn't there, but they are hard at installing more and more capacity.

 

[Alfred_B]

They gradually had polluted the air and hadn't realized just how bad it was until the Beijing Olympics. Once they saw what clean air looks like, there has been a lot of pressure to adopt clean methods. They now lead the world in renewable energy adoption and R&D.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
They gradually had polluted the air and hadn't realized just how bad it was until the Beijing Olympics. Once they saw what clean air looks like, there has been a lot of pressure to adopt clean methods. They now lead the world in renewable energy adoption and R&D.


Yes, and this is the same reason they are installing more nukes to replace the coal base-load providers. The fear is that they will move too fast and safety may become an issue.

 

[Alfred_B]

It's always a possibility. Just look at Fukushima.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
It's always a possibility. Just look at Fukushima.


Yes, though a failing of design, location and safety implementations, I'm sure that something similar could happen if proper precautions and procedures aren't observed with a new build as well.