3 ms·

> monstrous transmission losses When people claim monstrous transmission losses, I'm not sure what to think of. Is it 80%? Maybe 50%? Is 30% too much of a hit

by labawi 5y ago

> monstrous transmission losses When people claim monstrous transmission losses, I'm not sure what to think of. Is it 80%? Maybe 50%? Is 30% too much of a hit for reliable clean power? Surely you're not hung up about 15% for a good PV spot? Transporting HVDC across the globe raises questions about efficiency, but for 1000-2000 km I suggest you compare it to the efficiency of batteries and report which one has better efficiency. > HUGE overprovisioning in southern latitudes If you design it well, it's not overprovisioning, it's displacing production from consumption. Which is mostly problematic for socio-economical and political, not technical reasons.

foxyv 5y ago
I think HVDC losses over 1000 km are about 10%. This is in addition to power storage losses for responding to grid variability. Grid sharing makes a lot of sense but it will only get you so far. Not even considering the political situation of northern countries being dependent on southern countries. In addition it would turn countries like Turkey, Greece, and Ukraine into strategic assets leading to wars of acquisition to secure energy for Russia and northern Europe. However you are right about it being a socio-economical and political problem rather than a technical problem. We could totally just build a ring of solar around the tropics and transmit it north at 50% losses over 6000km. If Solar with battery reaches half the price of natural gas I could totally see it happening as energy demand increases.
- labawi 5y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current : > HVDC transmission losses are quoted at [around] 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.5%) lines at the same voltage 1000 km of HVDC has lower losses than a Tesla powerwall or almost any battery system I know of; likely less than the last 10km of transport to your device; also less than most AC->DC converters. Transport over 6000km would be about 20% losses, which is notable, but not too bad and could offset the need for quite a bit of storage. Though note that grid scale batteries are not workable. We need other solutions - create hydrogen, methane, ammonia/fertilizer, smelt aluminum, iron, cook concrete etc.

by labawi 5y ago

foxyv 5y ago

I think HVDC losses over 1000 km are about 10%. This is in addition to power storage losses for responding to grid variability. Grid sharing makes a lot of sense but it will only get you so far. Not even considering the political situation of northern countries being dependent on southern countries. In addition it would turn countries like Turkey, Greece, and Ukraine into strategic assets leading to wars of acquisition to secure energy for Russia and northern Europe. However you are right about it being a socio-economical and political problem rather than a technical problem. We could totally just build a ring of solar around the tropics and transmit it north at 50% losses over 6000km. If Solar with battery reaches half the price of natural gas I could totally see it happening as energy demand increases.

labawi 5y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current : > HVDC transmission losses are quoted at [around] 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.5%) lines at the same voltage 1000 km of HVDC has lower losses than a Tesla powerwall or almost any battery system I know of; likely less than the last 10km of transport to your device; also less than most AC->DC converters. Transport over 6000km would be about 20% losses, which is notable, but not too bad and could offset the need for quite a bit of storage. Though note that grid scale batteries are not workable. We need other solutions - create hydrogen, methane, ammonia/fertilizer, smelt aluminum, iron, cook concrete etc.