China starts UHV power line: The new 700 km UHV line will transmit 8M kW
38 points
21 hours ago
| 9 comments
| switchgear-magazine.com
| HN
kens
19 hours ago
[-]
The journal Science has an interesting article on China's remarkable shift to renewable energy:

"China’s turn to green energy dwarfs any other country’s, as a parade of astonishing numbers attests. In 2024 alone it installed new solar and wind generation equivalent to roughly 100 nuclear power plants, and the pace quickened early this year. Dozens of new, ultrahigh-voltage power lines are marching thousands of kilometers from western deserts where much of the solar energy is generated to the eastern cities where it is used. Hungrily awaiting the bounty of clean energy are millions of electric cars and a sprawling network of high-speed electric trains that can zip between cities 1000 kilometers apart in a morning."

The article also mentions that China produced more than 12 million electric cars in 2024, 70% of global production. "China now dominates global production of renewable energy technologies. It makes 80% of the world’s solar cells, 70% of its wind turbines, and 70% of its lithium batteries, at prices no competitor can match."

https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.aee8001

reply
ciconia
19 hours ago
[-]
Meanwhile the US is all about "drill baby drill", and the EU is still hedging its bets. Say what you will about the Chinese regime but they seem to be much more pragmatic and forward thinking than western democracies.
reply
Arn_Thor
19 hours ago
[-]
I much prefer democracy (the lack of large scale human rights abuses is a big plus) but one can't argue that with the fact that a multi-generational one-party system CAN encourage a refreshing degree of long-term thinking. This is a good example. (Of course, examples abound of the opposite--also in China)
reply
throwawayqqq11
18 hours ago
[-]
The best argument for democracies, are their possibility of peaceful revolutios and this problem might become very relevant for china too.

You can compare the early US with present china. Both countries had/have great potential for economic growth, and everything went well for its citizens as long as the pie got bigger. The interests of the elites and the working class were aligned by that. Once the interests of these two groups diverge, democracies become relevant again. That's why the tech oligarchs are so afraid and politically engaged, to distract us with the have-nots below us.

Today, china just has the better aligning plan, while the west is struggling to keep it's democracies. IMO any reasonable trajectory for sustainability and social stability is a contradiction to western elites, who cannot think outside their status quo, while china just builds it. I really wish china well and that they dont develop such an arrogant international stance like the west.

reply
xg15
18 hours ago
[-]
> (the lack of large scale human rights abuses is a big plus)

Inside the country at least...

reply
Arn_Thor
3 hours ago
[-]
Indeed
reply
Barrin92
18 hours ago
[-]
I'd honestly turn the argument on its head. It's China that is being democratic, in the most literal sense. Giving the people what they want, clean energy, cheap stuff, infrastructure simply by satisfying market demand.

It's the largest western, ostensibly democratic nation that is run by some combination of occult neoreactionaries, techno-elites and pseudo-royalty all of which seem to have lost connection to immediate reality in pursuit of annexing territories, bringing about the singularity or what have you. It is ironically China who is more short termist and notably better off for it

I would actually much prefer if the US was run by people who fix potholes in the streets than something that resembles Dune's House Harkonnen

reply
Arn_Thor
3 hours ago
[-]
you can't just go redefining terms until they mean what you want them to mean. You can say "China meets the wants of most of its citizens" (in which case, citation needed...) but that is definitionally not democratic. Democracy is a system, and a process can or cannot be democratic (within or outside a democratic system).
reply
Yizahi
16 hours ago
[-]
Neither is democratic. Democratic is direct rule of citizens, or at least some significant fraction of citizens. Only Switzerland is partially a democracy nowadays. Western countries are oligarchies, where elected elites are ruling however they deem necessary, but possibly with some caution because of elections. China is not even an oligarchy, it's a despotic regime, completely severed from the citizens.
reply
gamblor956
17 hours ago
[-]
It's not market demand. The government is ordering the construction of solar and wind farms without regard to the market demand or to the citizens residing in the locations where the solar farms and wind farms are to be built.

That's the exact opposite of democracy and capitalism.

reply
phatfish
16 hours ago
[-]
It's a rational way to deal with their energy needs, reduce pollution and their impact on the climate.

They have small gas and oil reserves if I remember. Unfortunately, if they were sitting on Venezuela or Russian style reserves or oil/gas the story might be different. But unlike Europe, the Chinese can see that being beholden to foreign states to keep the lights on is asking for trouble.

They seem to have avoided the ideology the big fossil fuel companies push in the west to make fossil vs green a political/class discussion, not a rational one. Rationally it makes most sense for a nation to generate their energy needs in a way they control with wind/solar/nuclear.

reply
bryanlarsen
13 hours ago
[-]
It's not small -- China is the world's 4th largest oil producer. They domestically produce about 75% of their demand.
reply
Gathering6678
13 hours ago
[-]
This number is wrong. Instead, ~70-75%[0] of China's oil demand is met by importing.

[0]: "2024年,中国...石油对外依存度71.9%,同比下降0.5个百分点。" (In 2024, China's ... dependence on foreign oil was 71.9%, a year-on-year decrease of 0.5 percentage points.)(https://finance.sina.cn/2025-01-24/detail-inefzsek2941040.d....)

reply
boredpeter
18 hours ago
[-]
I take issue with "the lack of large scale human rights abuses."

Are you ignorant or just deliberately ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people with an estimated 680,000 dead (~30% of Gaza) that occurred with widespread support of almost every western democracy?

China may be an authoritarian state but I would argue their large scale human rights abuses are far tamer than what these so called western democracies have been doing for the past 2 years and the direction we're headed.

reply
Arn_Thor
1 hour ago
[-]
Yes, I'm not including deaths in the colonial periphery. That's a rather different dynamic to the domestic question. Your criticism of this simplified view is a valid and welcome addition to the conversation, though.

The West's post-colonial exploitation and suppression of the global south does strike me as a feature of unfettered capitalism more than the political systems "back home".

reply
soldthat
15 hours ago
[-]
That’s just made up numbers. It’s like 10x the number claimed by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war

reply
aeternum
18 hours ago
[-]
China has invested heavily in all forms of energy including coal and oil, not just green energy.

It's pretty biased to highlight only the increases in renewable energy.

reply
bryanlarsen
13 hours ago
[-]
The others are a rounding error in comparison to renewable energy. Yes, they've added a considerable amount of coal electricity generation capacity but not very much coal electricity generation production. It's production that emits CO2, not capacity. Coal plants that sit around not burning coal are relatively harmless.
reply
dmitrygr
18 hours ago
[-]
I really would not celebrate just yet: https://geovisualist.com/tag/greenhouse-gases/
reply
tapoxi
17 hours ago
[-]
This post is 11 years old?
reply
dmitrygr
17 hours ago
[-]
reply
kens
17 hours ago
[-]
That article is from 2018. According to Science, Nov 2025, China is very close to the point at which its carbon emissions will decline, which will probably correspond to a global plateau in emissions. “Everything we’re seeing is that China is peaking a decade ahead of where they said they would. That’s a big deal.” Researchers think that global emissions would have plateaued in 2025 except that US policies to boost oil and natural gas production and suppress renewable energy were enough to postpone the plateau.

https://www.science.org/content/article/global-carbon-emissi...

reply
dmitrygr
16 hours ago
[-]
"we're very close to when X might decline" -- a second-order hypothetical?
reply
tzs
10 hours ago
[-]
China has more people than the US and EU combined.
reply
nubinetwork
20 hours ago
[-]
Such a weird numbering scheme... 8 million kilowatts is 8 gigawatts.
reply
DiabloD3
20 hours ago
[-]
kW happens to be the unit of sale for power (well, technically, the kWh), so it ironically makes sense to use it here.
reply
beAbU
18 hours ago
[-]
Anyone well versed in the metric system can easily scale up and down the orders of magnitude, and units like "millions of kilowatts" is just tautology in the end of the day.

Also, like others have pointed out, kilowatts and kilowatt-hours are most certainly not used on grid scale projects. Mega- and giga- are the standard throughout.

reply
trvz
20 hours ago
[-]
Anyone sending and receiving power through this project doesn't deal in kW.
reply
jacquesm
20 hours ago
[-]
At scale that isn't true, it is either MW or GW for instantaneous power and MWh or GWh for energy.
reply
general1465
6 hours ago
[-]
Do you have 8 million kilobytes, or 8 gigabytes of RAM?
reply
tuetuopay
20 hours ago
[-]
At grid scales, kW is a rounding error. Even MW is somewhat the decimal place, especially for a country as large as China.
reply
dbeardsl
19 hours ago
[-]
"Technically"? It's just wrong and I'm not sure which they were intending. Similarly, "miles and miles per hour are different units, it's not just a technical distinction.

A journalist is reporting on something they don't understand.

reply
seydor
19 hours ago
[-]
are people charged for kW only? it's not like internet connections
reply
immibis
17 hours ago
[-]
Should have been 8 billion kWh per 1000 hours...
reply
jacquesm
20 hours ago
[-]
HV interconnects are a key component in reducing fossil fuel dependence and they to a very large degree offset the need for battery storage if used properly.
reply
1970-01-01
20 hours ago
[-]
This is good news as they're still burning inexcusable amounts of coal to keep up with demand.
reply
rdtsc
19 hours ago
[-]
> Ultra-high voltage lines operate at voltages above 800 kV for direct current or 1,000 kV for alternating current,

Interesting, I thought above a certain distance DC is more viable. Or are they just describing the UHV term in general, not really that particular 700km line.

reply
pwrsysengineer
19 hours ago
[-]
Ultra-high voltage is an industry term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_voltage#Definition

> ANSI C84.1-2020 defines high voltage as 115 kV to 230 kV, extra-high voltage as 345 kV to 765 kV, and ultra-high voltage as 1,100 kV.

reply
MrGuts
18 hours ago
[-]
And this is why China is the future, and the US is Argentina.
reply
scblock
19 hours ago
[-]
China has completed a number of these projects and has several in construction. I am not able to directly confirm but this appears to be a DC line.

There's a decent high level summary on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...

reply
allears
21 hours ago
[-]
Now that the US has abdicated world leadership in so many areas, it's good to see China pushing the envelope.
reply
toomuchtodo
20 hours ago
[-]
They’re the first electrostate, and their success is our global success as their innovation and exports destroy the demand for fossil fuels globally.

Ember Energy: China Cleantech Exports Data Explorer - https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... (updated monthly)

China’s Oil Hoarding Clouds Outlook for Slowing Demand Growth - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-11/china-oil... | https://archive.today/YLDHL - December 11th, 2025

> China’s oil demand growth is forecast to be 150,000 barrels a day next year, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of analysts. Energy Aspects was the most bullish, expecting daily growth at 320,000 barrels, mainly on rising petrochemical demand. Still, the prediction is a year-on-year drop.

> “It’s an irreversible path,” said Ye Lin, vice president of oil markets at consultancy Rystad Energy, which also forecasts demand growth falling in 2026. “The market is now feeling the impact of China’s fast-growing EV fleet.”

Rhodium Group: Electric Trucks and the Future of Chinese Oil Demand - https://rhg.com/research/electric-trucks-and-the-future-of-c... - July 1st, 2025

> Analysts have been discussing “peak oil” for decades. We’re hardly equipped to wade into that debate ourselves, even as Chinese demand will be a critical variable in future global oil demand. But the ongoing electrification of China’s vehicle fleet, especially in trucking, suggests long-term headwinds to diesel and gasoline demand. We estimate the total electric vehicle fleet is already displacing over 1 million barrels per day in implied oil demand—equivalent to roughly the daily oil production of Oman. That level is likely to rise by around 600,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.

(TLDR At current electrification rates, China is destroying ~1M barrels/day of oil demand every 24 months)

HN Search: china electrostate - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

HN Search: china renewables - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

reply
SoftTalker
20 hours ago
[-]
Would be humorous in retrospect if all the dire forecasts about "peak oil" turned out to be the opposite problem: collapse in demand for oil.
reply
jacquesm
20 hours ago
[-]
That would be one of the better outcomes because there are a number of things for which it is very hard to use other stuff as a substitute. Oil is way too precious to be burned up.
reply
seanmcdirmid
19 hours ago
[-]
China doesn't have much oil. There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. Their move away from oil is more national security even if it does help the environment.
reply
palmotea
17 hours ago
[-]
> There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well.

How are they "easily blockaded"? I thought their shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the US, and their navy is now larger.

reply
seanmcdirmid
16 hours ago
[-]
Look at a map, China doesn't have open access to the ocean. They have Japan, Taiwan in their way, the only help out they have is the South China Sea, but even that is crowded and relies on Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia not being again them. They can only really get oil from the middle east through the straight of Malacca (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma), which is really easy to cut off. It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean.

So overland is their best option, but Russia is huge, lacks infrastructure (no oil pipelines in the far east), and anyways, isn't always China's friend. Western China abuts some Central asian countries with oil (and Iran in the middle), but again, not so friendly, lots of mountains to get trains through, and it is still far away from East China where the oil is actually needed.

So...they have lots of coal and are really pushing into renewables and nuclear. Nuclear is the kind of thing where you can stockpile a few thousand years worth of fuel with a few ships from Australia in peacetime. And if your economy relies more on electric trains and cars, you are going to be ok if someone cuts off or restricts your oil supply.

reply
palmotea
13 hours ago
[-]
> It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean.

If China can build lots of ships, it can build lots of warships. I'm skeptical the US Navy would have it that easy.

Also, as the US Navy ships trying to enforce a blockade would be getting pelted by land-based anti-ship missiles.

reply
seanmcdirmid
12 hours ago
[-]
The USA can also hammer them from nearby island based airbases. It isn’t easy to just saturate them with ships. Maybe if they can make breakthru with drones. Right now their best strategy is just be exposed less by making people drive EVs instead of gasoline vehicles. It also has other benefits like getting the rest of the world off of oil, and being able to sell the cars and clean energy production needed to do that, and also cleaner air. China wins 3 way here, so it’s really a very smart choice for them, and it gives them even more money to draw on to continue building a modern military.
reply
toomuchtodo
20 hours ago
[-]
Can you expound? A problem in demand for oil for whom (besides perhaps petro states that cannot meet their budgets at low global oil prices [1] [2])?

[1] https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Le...

[2] https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/

reply
SoftTalker
20 hours ago
[-]
Yeah, any major economic change can be destabilizing. Particularly if there are powerful incumbents who want to maintain the status quo. We fought a civil war over that sort of thing. So a "problem" in that sense, not that it wasn't the right thing to do.
reply
christkv
19 hours ago
[-]
China is pushing this because they have an oil problem. They are deeply dependent on oil that ships via sea and any conflict could quickly starve them of access to oil. Thus a focus on trying to get some energy independence.
reply
juancn
19 hours ago
[-]
8M kW? Isn't that 8GW?

That's more than 6 DeLorean Time Machines worth of power!

(~6.6 at 1.21 gigawatts per flux capacitor)

reply
cayleyh
19 hours ago
[-]
DTM is my new preferred power generation measurement unit :D thank you!
reply