Really solid breakdown of how geography amplifies renewable's grid integration challanges. What's underappreciated here is that the transformer tech itself is less revolutionary than China's willingness to deploy it at scale before the supply-demand mismatch becomes catastrophic. Most countires wait until after the crisis to retrofit infrastructure, but this is preemptive grid hardening disguised as a capacity upgrade, which is honestly a smarter play than the reactive approaches we're seeing in other markets.
Your source is a former television weather reporter. I don't think you understand the nature of evidence and how to distinguish between evidence and opinion.
I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. You're conflating topics, I am simply arguing a matter of cost. If there can't be an agreement on cost per watt of generated power then there can be no basis for establishing policy. You are trying to shoehorn a discussion of transition into a discussion of cost.
OMG, look at the title of the article, framing China's national energy policy as creating a form of dependency on RE. That's rich, the US judging China's national energy policy when the US doesn't even have a national energy policy. Arguments like this remind me of the arguments against horseless carriages, automobiles will never work because of reasons a, b and c.
Again, you're conflating my point that renewable energy is less expensive with policy, which is a more complex discussion. Please stop doing that. If you're capable of proving to me that my numbers are wrong, do so, otherwise, you lost the argument.
Kevin, you are looking at a gadget. I am looking at the "TCP/IP" of Energy.
You frame this as a "fix" for a "flaw." In the ChinArb framework, this is not a patch. It is the completion of a Continental Circuit Board.
1. The Physics of the "Energy Internet" The problem isn't just "intermittency" (clouds covering the sun). It is Distance. China's energy is in the West (Gansu/Xinjiang); its consumption is in the East (Shanghai/Guangdong). That is a 3,000 km gap.
AC Power (System A Standard): Works great for a city, but leaks energy like a sieve over 3,000 km due to reactive power loss.
UHVDC (System B Standard): This transformer enables Ultra-High Voltage Direct Current. It turns the grid into a lossless "Energy Highway." Think of AC as a bumpy country road and DC as a Bullet Train track. This transformer is the station that allows the erratic wind power to board the train.
2. Why the West Cannot Copy This The technology (Flexible DC) is known. Siemens and ABB have the patents. But System A (US/EU) cannot deploy it. Why?
The Land Problem: To build a 3,000 km line in the US, you need permission from 4 states, 50 counties, and 1,000 private landowners. One lawsuit kills the project.
The Grid Fragmentation: The US has three separate grids that barely talk to each other.
System B Advantage: China treats its entire territory as One Single Computer. It can route surplus electrons from a gust of wind in Xinjiang to charge a Tesla in Hangzhou in milliseconds.
Conclusion: This transformer is the "Router" for the world's largest physical internet. While System A debates "AI Safety" in the cloud, System B is solving the "Energy Latency" on the ground. And you cannot run the Cloud without the Ground.
I wouldn’t say that they are dependent on so called renewables, as they also deploy more reliable power sources than the rest of the world as well. But at the margin the new technology might make the grid more resilient. If you’re going to do that though and you’re concerned about emissions then why not build more nuclear power generation? In the long run it’s probably less expensive and you don’t have to worry about intermittentcy
Solar and wind are both much more expensive when you consider the EROI. But Ruinables advocates like to use LCOE - a fake metric that doesn’t include grid instability, the necessity for dispatchable backup and the energy consumption necessary to manufacture solar panels and windmills (Rube Goldberg machines )
So, the folks at LAZARD, one of the oldest and most conservative investment houses in the world, who have been tracking the levelized cost of energy for the past 25-years, have no idea what their talking about? Upon what basis do you argue that LCOE is a fake metric? Please cite your source. If you want to include the carbon footprint of manufacturing wind turbines et al, then include the carbon footprint of building a nuclear plant along with the carbon footprint of the never-ending fuel stream that includes extraction, transportation and refinement. Were you aware that there is no private insurance company willing to insure a nuclear facility so that insurance has to be provided by the taxpayer? Sounds like socialism to me. Are you willing to have a uranium mine or waste storage facility in your backyard?
Many if not most utilities are self insured anyway. That’s a red herring. Most importantly solar and wind power simply don’t have the capacity to generate enough electricity to provide enough for the needs of society and require dispatching backup systems due to intermittency. Lazard is a financial services firm not grid operators. Furthermore it is abundantly clear that Ruinables caused electricity rates to skyrocket. They don’t help reduce emissions and without mandates and subsidies they just can’t compete. https://medium.com/@marhje/why-lcoe-is-not-a-good-metric-for-renewables-82e16c3f7c3b
“Many if not most utilities are self-insured anyway. That’s a red herring.” Show me one nuclear reactor anywhere in the world that is self-insured. You don’t know what you’re talking about. All nuclear energy generation receives its insurance from government because there are no re-insurers willing to take the risk. Do you really believe a publicly traded company is going to expose itself to insolvency in the event of a nuclear accident? Show me documentation that there is one reactor here in the US that is not insured through a government program.
“Most importantly solar and wind power simply don’t have the capacity to generate enough electricity to provide enough for the needs of society and require dispatching backup systems due to intermittency.” There is no inherent limit to the amount of power that can be generated by RE. What are you talking about? You can always add size of any installation. And like I said above, stop with the baseload (intermittent) argument, batteries absorb excess power while balancing loads.
“Lazard is a financial services firm not grid operators.” That makes no sense at all. Only grid operators are able to make mathematical calculations? Lazard has an international reputation as a respected authority. The person you cite is a self-described “nuclear enthusiast” who wrote an essay based on a formula he found in an old textbook. Get real.
“Furthermore it is abundantly clear that Ruinables (sic) caused electricity rates to skyrocket.” Great, show me the numbers. Do you have a university study or government report that shows that data? Could higher utility rates have anything to do with the privatization of public utilizes and good old fashioned greed?
Sorry BigOinSeattle, your argument has no game. If you want to question Lazard’s analytical authority, you’ll need to do a lot better than this.
Utilities have been through bankruptcy you goof, but not because of nuclear plants which have a stellar safety record. “There is no inherent limit to the amount of power that can be generated by RE” oh in theory if there was a perfect backup system that could store all of the power generated. Problem is that no such system exists. YOU are the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Gfy
Really solid breakdown of how geography amplifies renewable's grid integration challanges. What's underappreciated here is that the transformer tech itself is less revolutionary than China's willingness to deploy it at scale before the supply-demand mismatch becomes catastrophic. Most countires wait until after the crisis to retrofit infrastructure, but this is preemptive grid hardening disguised as a capacity upgrade, which is honestly a smarter play than the reactive approaches we're seeing in other markets.
Best info on China
Your source is a former television weather reporter. I don't think you understand the nature of evidence and how to distinguish between evidence and opinion.
I'm going to try this one more time, and then you're on your own. You're conflating topics, I am simply arguing a matter of cost. If there can't be an agreement on cost per watt of generated power then there can be no basis for establishing policy. You are trying to shoehorn a discussion of transition into a discussion of cost.
OMG, look at the title of the article, framing China's national energy policy as creating a form of dependency on RE. That's rich, the US judging China's national energy policy when the US doesn't even have a national energy policy. Arguments like this remind me of the arguments against horseless carriages, automobiles will never work because of reasons a, b and c.
Again, you're conflating my point that renewable energy is less expensive with policy, which is a more complex discussion. Please stop doing that. If you're capable of proving to me that my numbers are wrong, do so, otherwise, you lost the argument.
Kevin, you are looking at a gadget. I am looking at the "TCP/IP" of Energy.
You frame this as a "fix" for a "flaw." In the ChinArb framework, this is not a patch. It is the completion of a Continental Circuit Board.
1. The Physics of the "Energy Internet" The problem isn't just "intermittency" (clouds covering the sun). It is Distance. China's energy is in the West (Gansu/Xinjiang); its consumption is in the East (Shanghai/Guangdong). That is a 3,000 km gap.
AC Power (System A Standard): Works great for a city, but leaks energy like a sieve over 3,000 km due to reactive power loss.
UHVDC (System B Standard): This transformer enables Ultra-High Voltage Direct Current. It turns the grid into a lossless "Energy Highway." Think of AC as a bumpy country road and DC as a Bullet Train track. This transformer is the station that allows the erratic wind power to board the train.
2. Why the West Cannot Copy This The technology (Flexible DC) is known. Siemens and ABB have the patents. But System A (US/EU) cannot deploy it. Why?
The Land Problem: To build a 3,000 km line in the US, you need permission from 4 states, 50 counties, and 1,000 private landowners. One lawsuit kills the project.
The Grid Fragmentation: The US has three separate grids that barely talk to each other.
System B Advantage: China treats its entire territory as One Single Computer. It can route surplus electrons from a gust of wind in Xinjiang to charge a Tesla in Hangzhou in milliseconds.
Conclusion: This transformer is the "Router" for the world's largest physical internet. While System A debates "AI Safety" in the cloud, System B is solving the "Energy Latency" on the ground. And you cannot run the Cloud without the Ground.
Power is generated in DC, not AC.
China is creating practical solutions for renewable power distribution.
I wouldn’t say that they are dependent on so called renewables, as they also deploy more reliable power sources than the rest of the world as well. But at the margin the new technology might make the grid more resilient. If you’re going to do that though and you’re concerned about emissions then why not build more nuclear power generation? In the long run it’s probably less expensive and you don’t have to worry about intermittentcy
Also, please stop with the intermittency (baseload) argument. That is so 25-years ago. Cost effective grid storage is a reality, and now we are gravitating to storage mediums like salt. https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/01/12/1129991/sodium-ion-batteries-2026-breakthrough-technology/
Nuclear power will never be less expensive, it is the most expensive form of power with all kinds of hidden subsidies: https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf
Solar and wind are both much more expensive when you consider the EROI. But Ruinables advocates like to use LCOE - a fake metric that doesn’t include grid instability, the necessity for dispatchable backup and the energy consumption necessary to manufacture solar panels and windmills (Rube Goldberg machines )
So, the folks at LAZARD, one of the oldest and most conservative investment houses in the world, who have been tracking the levelized cost of energy for the past 25-years, have no idea what their talking about? Upon what basis do you argue that LCOE is a fake metric? Please cite your source. If you want to include the carbon footprint of manufacturing wind turbines et al, then include the carbon footprint of building a nuclear plant along with the carbon footprint of the never-ending fuel stream that includes extraction, transportation and refinement. Were you aware that there is no private insurance company willing to insure a nuclear facility so that insurance has to be provided by the taxpayer? Sounds like socialism to me. Are you willing to have a uranium mine or waste storage facility in your backyard?
Many if not most utilities are self insured anyway. That’s a red herring. Most importantly solar and wind power simply don’t have the capacity to generate enough electricity to provide enough for the needs of society and require dispatching backup systems due to intermittency. Lazard is a financial services firm not grid operators. Furthermore it is abundantly clear that Ruinables caused electricity rates to skyrocket. They don’t help reduce emissions and without mandates and subsidies they just can’t compete. https://medium.com/@marhje/why-lcoe-is-not-a-good-metric-for-renewables-82e16c3f7c3b
“Many if not most utilities are self-insured anyway. That’s a red herring.” Show me one nuclear reactor anywhere in the world that is self-insured. You don’t know what you’re talking about. All nuclear energy generation receives its insurance from government because there are no re-insurers willing to take the risk. Do you really believe a publicly traded company is going to expose itself to insolvency in the event of a nuclear accident? Show me documentation that there is one reactor here in the US that is not insured through a government program.
“Most importantly solar and wind power simply don’t have the capacity to generate enough electricity to provide enough for the needs of society and require dispatching backup systems due to intermittency.” There is no inherent limit to the amount of power that can be generated by RE. What are you talking about? You can always add size of any installation. And like I said above, stop with the baseload (intermittent) argument, batteries absorb excess power while balancing loads.
“Lazard is a financial services firm not grid operators.” That makes no sense at all. Only grid operators are able to make mathematical calculations? Lazard has an international reputation as a respected authority. The person you cite is a self-described “nuclear enthusiast” who wrote an essay based on a formula he found in an old textbook. Get real.
“Furthermore it is abundantly clear that Ruinables (sic) caused electricity rates to skyrocket.” Great, show me the numbers. Do you have a university study or government report that shows that data? Could higher utility rates have anything to do with the privatization of public utilizes and good old fashioned greed?
Sorry BigOinSeattle, your argument has no game. If you want to question Lazard’s analytical authority, you’ll need to do a lot better than this.
Utilities have been through bankruptcy you goof, but not because of nuclear plants which have a stellar safety record. “There is no inherent limit to the amount of power that can be generated by RE” oh in theory if there was a perfect backup system that could store all of the power generated. Problem is that no such system exists. YOU are the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Gfy
And yes they are rolling out nuclear at an amazing rate as well