Modeling study reveals that renewable uncertainty and demand surges derail power grid decarbonization, highlighting the critical need for flexible capacity and energy storage.
In the context of global energy transition and climate change, exogenous energy shocks (such as energy price volatility, renewable energy uncertainty, and increasing power demand) pose growing challenges to power system carbon neutrality. However, existing studies mainly focus on optimizing emission-reduction pathways while neglecting system resilience under energy shocks. This study applies a coupled LEAP-NEMO model for Guangdong Province, integrating demand growth, generation evolution, dispatch optimization, system costs, and carbon constraints. Five scenarios (BAS, COM, COM_ES1, COM_ES2, and COM_ES3) are established to assess the impacts of exogenous energy shocks on carbon-neutral transition pathways. The results show that under COM scenario, Guangdong’s power system’s carbon emissions will peak by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2055. Different energy shocks produce substantially different effects on the carbon-neutral transition. Fossil fuel price shocks (COM_ES1) have limited impacts, with cumulative emissions changing by only 2.1% relative to COM. Renewable energy volatility (COM_ES2) reduces wind and solar generation and raises cumulative emissions by 73.7%, preventing carbon neutrality by 2060. Demand growth (COM_ES3) poses the most severe challenge, with cumulative emissions reaching 2.04 times those of the COM scenario. Resilience analysis further shows that renewable energy volatility causes the largest deterioration in reserve margin performance, while demand growth has the strongest effects on emissions and cost performance. These results identify renewable generation uncertainty and electricity demand growth as the key risks to a smooth carbon-neutral transition, highlighting the need for coordinated deployment of energy storage, nuclear power, flexible resources, and demand-side management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guangyao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: