4 ms·
China manages to transfer 10+GW of power over 3000km with losses of ~3%/1000km just fine. [0] It is the infrastructure we are going to need anyways to geograph
by _Microft 6y ago
China manages to transfer 10+GW of power over 3000km with losses of ~3%/1000km just fine. [0]
It is the infrastructure we are going to need anyways to geographically balance varying supply and demand with increasing amounts of (intermittent) renewable energy on the grid.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- gruez 6y ago> China manages to transfer 10+GW of power over 3000km with losses of ~3%/1000km just fine. [0] Against how much power usage? California has 10GW[1] of north/south transmission capacity against 80GW[2] of installed capacity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26187166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26187166 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoThe bottom line is that their transmission lines were built in conjunction with power plants. They weren’t building power plants in the middle of nowhere without any plan to get that energy back into the grid, to where it needs to be. There wasn’t an excess of power plants sitting idle with no way to send their power into the grid until Bitcoin came along to consume it. Mining is, however, negating any potential environmental offset of those plants by consuming the energy before it can be sent to other locations that are still dependent on fossil fuels.