If you don't believe me, run the numbers of how many kg of lithium batteries China would need to supply an entire week of energy in the middle of winter (all energy, not just current electricity demand, because in this scenario we're assuming everything is 100% electrified).
Also if you're potentially going to be fighting a war, you need more energy, not less, and it's even more important for it to be reliable year-round.
This is why China is doing what they're doing, they're not idiots and they know that wishful thinking is not a strategy
Output in the latter case will be under 10% of full power and probably under 5%.
It’s not bullshit it’s just physics, which is why the world looks like it does and not like the world you’re describing
This opinion is rather simplistic. China is reported to have 60% of it's energy needs already supplied by renewable sources, but this transition creates different types of challenges such as preserving the power grid's inertia. Otherwise you might see yourself in a scenario such as the Spanish blackout. This means having in place strategies for fast response (gas) and baseline (hydro storage, nuclear) to prevent the scenario.
Batteries have a limited capacity and have a higher investment cost. Gas is the standard option for fast response. Pumped-storage hydro has by far the highest capex and has a heavy environment impact.
It's baffling how people show up in this sort of discussions arguing that standard tried-and-true strategies somehow don't work. Quite odd.
China is pursuing the strategy you're describing, but there's a reason they're also building nuclear, they're increasing LNG infrastructure, they haven't phased out coal, and they've built a huge amount of oil storage.
Solar and wind can be part of that strategy but it's not so simple, otherwise people would do it