I'm an engineer who worked with mechanics and electronics for 15 years. I'm not a power grid engineer so not a specialist there.
Regarding the videos in China I want to give my perspective though:
1. Smart transformers and HVDC
These are already in use in Sweden (which has a similar geographic situation as China: eletricity produced in the north and most of the consumption in the south). Sweden solved that problem over 60 years ago although with an AC grid. Now Sweden has a too large production from intermittent wind and has upgraded the grid with "smart" transformers (I would argue that the grid is the smart one, not perhaps the transformers themselves). There is also both old and new HVDC lines in the south so that too is not a new thing. (Sweden actually build the world's first commercial HVDC powerline in 1954. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlandsl%C3%A4nken).
So these things are not something that China only can do. They are in fact already in use in a tiny country such as Sweden. However, perhaps this is breaking for China and will drastically improve their industry.
2. sCO2
This part I'm less familiar with but as an engineer I hope I can at least see if I make crazy mistakes so here we go. I tried to use chatGPT and force it to reply only with facts I asked for and not go on the typical crackpot trips.
Traditional ways of converting excess heat from steel plants into electricity apparently involves the Rankine cycle with steam. These have an efficiency of 15-25%. The proposed sCO2 method has an efficiency of 20-35%. So although a large relative improvement, it still is not very efficient. So how much heat is there to be had? ChatGPT estimates 1-3 GW extra would come from applying the sCO2 method to the Chinese steel plants instead of using the steam method. Perhaps 3-9 GW including the broader heavy industry.
How much is that? It corresponds to about 5-15% of China's nuclear fleet. So although not tiny, it isn't a lot either. A problem with sCO2 is that it is apparently most efficient in higher temperatures than a lot of industries run at, so if that can be overcome the numbers would improve.
3. Water batteries
This part I am the least familiar with, but there seem to be some hype in this topic. The text in the video comes from this article:
"Researchers in China have developed a water-based battery, which is claimed to be much safer and energy-efficient than “highly flammable” non-aqueous lithium batteries. "
Did they really? The article links to a Nature Energy publication that indeed talks about the chemistry of batteries
But did they build a battery? No. They demonstrated battery chemistry. What scale of chemistry did they show? We don't know. Probably milliliters? What scale is needed for a grid batteries? Many millions of liters. Is it easy to scale a lab test by a factor of 100.000.000? Who knows.
I used chatGPT to estimate the amount of iodine needed for a 1TWh battery, a scale that would matter for a 10 million pop country. It came to 0.2–2 million tonnes iodine. That is several times the global annual production. Is it easy to increase the global production by tens-hundreds of times? For iodine chatGPT says no because there is no economical way to produce those amounts of iodine today.
Conclusion
Sorry for using chatgpt in the reply here but I think it still can provide some value. I generally get skeptical when I see headlines like "2x this or that", "built a thing that can make XYZ". There is usually some truth to it but generally only a little bit.
As I see it none of the tech proposed in these videos is like WOOOOOOOW at the moment. Perhaps like lithium in the beginning of the 2000's. A promising tech that indeed improved and got implemented on large (but not grid large) scale over time.
I do have to say that the Chinese impress though. As much as the west impressed 50-100 years ago when we did the same thing: put energy and food security on top of the agenda and cared less about pronouns, DEI and moral lecturing.
And again, I'm not a power grid engineer. Just a dinky little engineering physics engineer.
Mark, great comment. I’d like to add that with regards to renewables and batteries (and other hype) let’s not forget the real hero of the story: synchronous inertia (svängmassa).
Basically, a big, big spinning chunk of mass that is ”charged” by revving it up and then kept spinning - when the grid flickers, the mass keeps spinning, but now it recharges the net (via a generator) as the energy is sucked out of it. Big spinning mass = lots of stability.
If you have a lot of nuclear power (steam turbines) or hydropower, you have big chunks of metall that are difficult to brake (inertia). If you have lots of smaller installations with gas turbines or fuel>steam turbines you have dispersed synchronous inertia.
However, the big spinning mass doesn’t have to be a power generator - in the UK, Australia and other places, full scale installations of just ”dumb” mass has been installed to provide stability to the net.
Thanks. The greens seem to put their hope to smart transformrs/grids to compensate for the lack of synchronous inertia but as a pragmatic engineer I think it is a foolish way to operate: to shut down what works in hope of creating something that may or may not work.
Byd seems to release their "blade 2.0" battery now. Rechargable within 9 minutes from 10-100% and inside china with a lifelong guarantee. If their claims are true - dont know.
I'm an engineer who worked with mechanics and electronics for 15 years. I'm not a power grid engineer so not a specialist there.
Regarding the videos in China I want to give my perspective though:
1. Smart transformers and HVDC
These are already in use in Sweden (which has a similar geographic situation as China: eletricity produced in the north and most of the consumption in the south). Sweden solved that problem over 60 years ago although with an AC grid. Now Sweden has a too large production from intermittent wind and has upgraded the grid with "smart" transformers (I would argue that the grid is the smart one, not perhaps the transformers themselves). There is also both old and new HVDC lines in the south so that too is not a new thing. (Sweden actually build the world's first commercial HVDC powerline in 1954. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlandsl%C3%A4nken).
So these things are not something that China only can do. They are in fact already in use in a tiny country such as Sweden. However, perhaps this is breaking for China and will drastically improve their industry.
2. sCO2
This part I'm less familiar with but as an engineer I hope I can at least see if I make crazy mistakes so here we go. I tried to use chatGPT and force it to reply only with facts I asked for and not go on the typical crackpot trips.
Traditional ways of converting excess heat from steel plants into electricity apparently involves the Rankine cycle with steam. These have an efficiency of 15-25%. The proposed sCO2 method has an efficiency of 20-35%. So although a large relative improvement, it still is not very efficient. So how much heat is there to be had? ChatGPT estimates 1-3 GW extra would come from applying the sCO2 method to the Chinese steel plants instead of using the steam method. Perhaps 3-9 GW including the broader heavy industry.
How much is that? It corresponds to about 5-15% of China's nuclear fleet. So although not tiny, it isn't a lot either. A problem with sCO2 is that it is apparently most efficient in higher temperatures than a lot of industries run at, so if that can be overcome the numbers would improve.
3. Water batteries
This part I am the least familiar with, but there seem to be some hype in this topic. The text in the video comes from this article:
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-energy-dense-aqueous-batteries?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The text is pretty click-baity:
"Researchers in China have developed a water-based battery, which is claimed to be much safer and energy-efficient than “highly flammable” non-aqueous lithium batteries. "
Did they really? The article links to a Nature Energy publication that indeed talks about the chemistry of batteries
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01515-9
But did they build a battery? No. They demonstrated battery chemistry. What scale of chemistry did they show? We don't know. Probably milliliters? What scale is needed for a grid batteries? Many millions of liters. Is it easy to scale a lab test by a factor of 100.000.000? Who knows.
I used chatGPT to estimate the amount of iodine needed for a 1TWh battery, a scale that would matter for a 10 million pop country. It came to 0.2–2 million tonnes iodine. That is several times the global annual production. Is it easy to increase the global production by tens-hundreds of times? For iodine chatGPT says no because there is no economical way to produce those amounts of iodine today.
Conclusion
Sorry for using chatgpt in the reply here but I think it still can provide some value. I generally get skeptical when I see headlines like "2x this or that", "built a thing that can make XYZ". There is usually some truth to it but generally only a little bit.
As I see it none of the tech proposed in these videos is like WOOOOOOOW at the moment. Perhaps like lithium in the beginning of the 2000's. A promising tech that indeed improved and got implemented on large (but not grid large) scale over time.
I do have to say that the Chinese impress though. As much as the west impressed 50-100 years ago when we did the same thing: put energy and food security on top of the agenda and cared less about pronouns, DEI and moral lecturing.
And again, I'm not a power grid engineer. Just a dinky little engineering physics engineer.
Cheers!
To be clear, my explanation of synchronous inertia wasn’t really meant for you, it was meant for Ferg and other non-engineers.
Alas, the greens aren’t alone in wanting to shut down things that work out of spite or hope.
Mark, great comment. I’d like to add that with regards to renewables and batteries (and other hype) let’s not forget the real hero of the story: synchronous inertia (svängmassa).
Basically, a big, big spinning chunk of mass that is ”charged” by revving it up and then kept spinning - when the grid flickers, the mass keeps spinning, but now it recharges the net (via a generator) as the energy is sucked out of it. Big spinning mass = lots of stability.
If you have a lot of nuclear power (steam turbines) or hydropower, you have big chunks of metall that are difficult to brake (inertia). If you have lots of smaller installations with gas turbines or fuel>steam turbines you have dispersed synchronous inertia.
However, the big spinning mass doesn’t have to be a power generator - in the UK, Australia and other places, full scale installations of just ”dumb” mass has been installed to provide stability to the net.
And spinning mass is predictable and simple.
Thanks. The greens seem to put their hope to smart transformrs/grids to compensate for the lack of synchronous inertia but as a pragmatic engineer I think it is a foolish way to operate: to shut down what works in hope of creating something that may or may not work.
Can't agree more re: the importance of learning from experts you disagree with. I subscribe to EWR now and then for the same reason.
That’s the part people underestimate.
Edges don’t disappear because they stop working.
They disappear because they get crowded.
Once too many people are using the same signal, the return gets pulled forward — and what’s left looks like it “stopped working.”
That’s why behavioural edges last longer. They don’t scale the same way.
Principle: an edge doesn’t die — it gets arbitraged away.
Byd seems to release their "blade 2.0" battery now. Rechargable within 9 minutes from 10-100% and inside china with a lifelong guarantee. If their claims are true - dont know.
under-reported : how much many nations appreciate their working renewable\nuclear infrastructure during geopolitical disasters.
over-reported : and how much more it would be if they had decided to be all-in on fossil. and , of course, 'normal times' baseload utopia.