Evaluates new-type energy storage in provinces, showing regional disparities and implications for policy development.
Against the background of China’s dual-carbon transition and the strategic rise of new-type energy storage, this study develops a composite indicator framework to evaluate the development of new-type energy storage across Chinese provinces. Based on provincial-level data covering industrial capacity, policy and planning conditions, technological innovation, environmental responsibility, and international influence, the framework integrates entropy-based objective weighting with expert-informed subjective weighting to support transparent and comparable assessment. The results reveal differentiated regional development patterns, characterized by strong performance in eastern provinces. Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Beijing form a leading cluster, while many provinces outside the eastern region remain primarily deployment-oriented and show relatively greater room for improvement in innovation capacity, market conditions, and external engagement. Among the assessed dimensions, technological innovation and external orientation display the most evident spatial differentiation. A sensitivity analysis further confirms that the main ranking pattern remains stable under alternative weighting assumptions. These findings suggest that China’s rapid expansion of new-type energy storage capacity is increasingly moving from scale-oriented growth toward quality-oriented upgrading, while differentiated provincial conditions continue to shape regional development pathways. From a planning and policy perspective, the results highlight the importance of improving coordination across regions, strengthening market-related institutional conditions, and addressing environmental management challenges associated with large-scale deployment. The proposed framework offers a practical tool for comparative analysis of energy storage development at the regional level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: