3 ms·
You can suffer 60% loss on HVDC long range transmission alone, and that's assuming you have the tech for it. There's a reason why coal is hauled to power stati
by Aperocky 7y ago
You can suffer 60% loss on HVDC long range transmission alone, and that's assuming you have the tech for it.
There's a reason why coal is hauled to power station, instead of being burned near mines.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoHave a citation for those losses? I haven’t seen HVDC lines with losses above single digits. “HVDC transmission has typically 30-50% less transmission loss than comparable alternating current overhead lines. (For comparison: given 2500 MW transmitted power on 800 km of overhead line, the loss with a conventional 400-kv AC line is 9.4%; with HVDC transmission at 500 kV, it is only 6%, and at 800 kV it is just 2.6%.)” [1] Also, there are many coal plants sited right at coal mines. [1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-07-wismar/factsheet-hvdc-e.pdf https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...
- adrianN 7y agoAccording to the Wikipedia HVDC losses are below 3% per 1000km. To have 60% loss you'd need to transmit the power halfway across the globe.
- Aperocky 7y agoI stand corrected.
- teh_klev 7y ago> There's a reason why coal is hauled to power station, instead of being burned near mines. Not really. Power stations need a ready and ample supply of water for power generation and cooling. This is why they can often be a long way from mines and oil/gas fields.