4 ms·

Transmission loss is a real and important reason why you can't, say, cover the Sahara with solar panels to get unlimited free energy for mainland Europe and Afr

Transmission loss is a real and important reason why you can't, say, cover the Sahara with solar panels to get unlimited free energy for mainland Europe and Africa (barring all the logistical challenges of actually pulling something like that off). This is because you lose a significant amount of energy just by moving it from one place to another. With RTP superconductors, you get near perfect transmission from the site of energy production to the site of consumption. You could put wind turbine in remote sections of Montana and power up Chicago, something which previously would have been impossible.

nazgulnarsil 3y ago
Sahara solar panels were economically viable according to multiple studies, and there have been some limited plans made, but it has turned out politically non viable so far. Transmission losses are smaller than often assumed.
QuadrupleA 3y ago
From what I've read, grid transmission losses are something like 5-10% - e.g. this page (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3) cites 5% in the US. Fine and nice, but seems incremental, not earth shattering, and I wonder about the logistics / ROI of manufacturing thousands of miles of LK-99 cables to achieve that. But maybe I'm missing something.
- ijustlovemath 3y ago
  The losses increase with distance, and decrease with higher voltages, which is why most cross country transmission happens at 740kVAC. But still, the energy you're using in your day to day life is almost always produced with 50-100miles of where it's consumed, because transporting it longer distances make losses uneconomical.
- rdsubhas 3y ago
  At long distance, the transmission losses are so uneconomical – that they never got built in the firt place. This is why you shouldn't look at current loss numbers, which already weeded out what was not feasible before. Now, if transmission losses are near-zero, then yeah – you'd still get the same power for the same price & losses (for other reasons), but from 500-1000 miles away instead of 50-100 miles. Residential customers won't notice anything immediately because they'll pay the same due to initial capital costs and stuff. But decades down the line it would slowly, invisibly transform everything around you.

nazgulnarsil 3y ago

Sahara solar panels were economically viable according to multiple studies, and there have been some limited plans made, but it has turned out politically non viable so far. Transmission losses are smaller than often assumed.

QuadrupleA 3y ago

From what I've read, grid transmission losses are something like 5-10% - e.g. this page (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3) cites 5% in the US. Fine and nice, but seems incremental, not earth shattering, and I wonder about the logistics / ROI of manufacturing thousands of miles of LK-99 cables to achieve that. But maybe I'm missing something.

ijustlovemath 3y ago
The losses increase with distance, and decrease with higher voltages, which is why most cross country transmission happens at 740kVAC. But still, the energy you're using in your day to day life is almost always produced with 50-100miles of where it's consumed, because transporting it longer distances make losses uneconomical.
rdsubhas 3y ago
At long distance, the transmission losses are so uneconomical – that they never got built in the firt place. This is why you shouldn't look at current loss numbers, which already weeded out what was not feasible before. Now, if transmission losses are near-zero, then yeah – you'd still get the same power for the same price & losses (for other reasons), but from 500-1000 miles away instead of 50-100 miles. Residential customers won't notice anything immediately because they'll pay the same due to initial capital costs and stuff. But decades down the line it would slowly, invisibly transform everything around you.