4 ms·

Compared to any (currently practical) storage, just laying more wires to places that don't currently have too much wind/sun is much more efficient. Turns out,

Compared to any (currently practical) storage, just laying more wires to places that don't currently have too much wind/sun is much more efficient. Turns out, cables are relatively cheap, compared to batteries.

mywittyname 3y ago
Honestly, wasting the energy is cheap compared to batteries. It's okay to waste excess capacity so long as it is wind/solar/nuclear.
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
How cheap are international cables compared to electrolysis for hydrogen production paired with lorries for transport?
- whizzter 3y ago
  The conversion ratio is quite bad, however if you MUST burn something (like in Steelmaking mentioned in the sibling comment) then it starts to make more sense but iirc it's still calculated to be slightly more expensive steel compared to coal currently (but if we continue building out variably producing power like wind, solar while augumenting the regular production the general idea is that the intermittent spikes could be used for affordable production).
2000UltraDeluxe 3y ago
Absolutely! Alas, the Finnish administration seems more interested in using areas with cheap electricity to attract electricity-intensive industry rather than, say, exporting it to other countries. Heck, in neighbouring Sweden they have issues transferring power from the large hydro dams in the north, to the densely populated south where the power is needed. While building better grids is practically doable, I don't see it happening anytime soon; the idea, of using cheap electricity to entice a FAANG to build a data center in one's backyard is preferable to most elected officials here. In that situation it's probably better business to just buy cheap electricity off the market and use it to do something useful.
whizzter 3y ago
Over longer distances the transmissions losses makes cables more inefficient (otherwise all of Europe could easily be powered by Saharan solar-power). The flooding mentioned in the article is about 1000km away from the major population centers in Finland and Sweden. Transforming to burnable fuels via electricity is actually useful for some applications and actually in the planning stage with some steelmakers (as a replacement for coal!) like h2 green steel in the same region of Sweden as the floodings. They claim that steelmaking is up to 7% of global co2 emissions and being able to move to gas produced with cheap electricity might be only marginally more costly than coal. https://www.h2greensteel.com/ https://www.h2greensteel.com/
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Not necessarily. For a worked example, it's cheaper to power Boston with a large number of local solar panels and batteries than it is to power it with a small number of solar panels and batteries in Arizona connected to Boston via HVDC lines. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-electricity-is-local/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...

mywittyname 3y ago

Honestly, wasting the energy is cheap compared to batteries. It's okay to waste excess capacity so long as it is wind/solar/nuclear.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

How cheap are international cables compared to electrolysis for hydrogen production paired with lorries for transport?

whizzter 3y ago
The conversion ratio is quite bad, however if you MUST burn something (like in Steelmaking mentioned in the sibling comment) then it starts to make more sense but iirc it's still calculated to be slightly more expensive steel compared to coal currently (but if we continue building out variably producing power like wind, solar while augumenting the regular production the general idea is that the intermittent spikes could be used for affordable production).

2000UltraDeluxe 3y ago

Absolutely! Alas, the Finnish administration seems more interested in using areas with cheap electricity to attract electricity-intensive industry rather than, say, exporting it to other countries. Heck, in neighbouring Sweden they have issues transferring power from the large hydro dams in the north, to the densely populated south where the power is needed. While building better grids is practically doable, I don't see it happening anytime soon; the idea, of using cheap electricity to entice a FAANG to build a data center in one's backyard is preferable to most elected officials here. In that situation it's probably better business to just buy cheap electricity off the market and use it to do something useful.

whizzter 3y ago

Over longer distances the transmissions losses makes cables more inefficient (otherwise all of Europe could easily be powered by Saharan solar-power). The flooding mentioned in the article is about 1000km away from the major population centers in Finland and Sweden. Transforming to burnable fuels via electricity is actually useful for some applications and actually in the planning stage with some steelmakers (as a replacement for coal!) like h2 green steel in the same region of Sweden as the floodings. They claim that steelmaking is up to 7% of global co2 emissions and being able to move to gas produced with cheap electricity might be only marginally more costly than coal. https://www.h2greensteel.com/ https://www.h2greensteel.com/

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Not necessarily. For a worked example, it's cheaper to power Boston with a large number of local solar panels and batteries than it is to power it with a small number of solar panels and batteries in Arizona connected to Boston via HVDC lines. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-electricity-is-local/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...