4 ms·

One of the benefits often cited (and it is again in this article) is that SMRs allow for electrical generation to be located extremely close to where it will be

by mikece 3y ago

One of the benefits often cited (and it is again in this article) is that SMRs allow for electrical generation to be located extremely close to where it will be consumed, avoiding line losses on the transmission grid. How significant are the line losses for a plant that is 100 miles from where the electricity is being consumed?

ahmedfromtunis 3y ago
I did a paper on this back at engineering school around 10 years ago. I forgot most of the details, but iirc the losses can be up to 33% in certain conditions (mostly cold weather).
- mikece 3y ago
  Worse in cold weather? I thought conductors get more efficient the colder they get (or is cold relative to humans insignificant to high voltage lines)?
  - ahmedfromtunis 3y ago
    I forgot the details but I remember it's something about humidity in the air. I recall however that I read about a blue halo forming around some cables in snowy nights as electricity charges the air surrounding said cables. This phenomenon was a huge source of losses in transport cables.
tnorgaard 3y ago
Viking Link, the 765 km HVDC (VSC-based) link rated at 1400 MW between England and Denmark has a rated loss at 3.7% [0]. [0] https://www.viking-link.com/auction-faqs https://www.viking-link.com/auction-faqs
LorenPechtel 3y ago
Can't address it overall but some while back I did some calculation on shipping power around the world from wherever the sun was shining. I took the real-world numbers for the biggest transmission lines--and found the only question being how many nines on the loss percentage. You are fighting two separate forces. Some of the energy is lost to heat in the wires, this is minimized by making the voltage as high as possible--but the higher the voltage the more corona loss there will be.
apendleton 3y ago
At least in a US context, the proximity advantage is often less about line losses than about the political realities of building transmission. We have way less transmission in the US than we're expected to need as we electrify, and the right-of-way acquisition, permitting, etc., to build new high-voltage transmission are really daunting. NIMBYs tend to hate it (somewhat understandably -- it's ugly), and every jurisdiction along the path of the proposed new line typically has its own permitting process which effectively grants it veto power (unlike gas pipelines, interestingly, where the federal government has permitting authority that supersedes local authority). A big potential advantage of these kinds of solutions is that you can just site the plant such that you can avoid building the transmission at all. Of course, nuclear obviously has its own NIMBY concerns, permitting issues, etc., so it's not a panacea.
- belorn 3y ago
  I find that NIMBY concerns can be very much connected to cost and profits. Looking at wind farms which has both a lot of noise and visible footprint, people becomes much more acceptable to those costs if the profits from the farm ends up with people who live there. An other comment here talked about how almost 80% of the energy bill in California are from fixed costs from primarily transmission. That is a lot of space to create economical incentive for people to have a plant located very near where they live. Similar, politicians are much more willing to be permissive with permits when there is an economical benefit for the region, as energy costs are quite significant bit of a regional budget.
jijijijij 3y ago
People don't even want wind turbines in their neighborhoods, I don't think they will be exactly thrilled about nuclear reactors...

by mikece 3y ago

ahmedfromtunis 3y ago

I did a paper on this back at engineering school around 10 years ago. I forgot most of the details, but iirc the losses can be up to 33% in certain conditions (mostly cold weather).

mikece 3y ago
Worse in cold weather? I thought conductors get more efficient the colder they get (or is cold relative to humans insignificant to high voltage lines)?
- ahmedfromtunis 3y ago
  I forgot the details but I remember it's something about humidity in the air. I recall however that I read about a blue halo forming around some cables in snowy nights as electricity charges the air surrounding said cables. This phenomenon was a huge source of losses in transport cables.

tnorgaard 3y ago

Viking Link, the 765 km HVDC (VSC-based) link rated at 1400 MW between England and Denmark has a rated loss at 3.7% [0]. [0] https://www.viking-link.com/auction-faqs https://www.viking-link.com/auction-faqs

LorenPechtel 3y ago

Can't address it overall but some while back I did some calculation on shipping power around the world from wherever the sun was shining. I took the real-world numbers for the biggest transmission lines--and found the only question being how many nines on the loss percentage. You are fighting two separate forces. Some of the energy is lost to heat in the wires, this is minimized by making the voltage as high as possible--but the higher the voltage the more corona loss there will be.

apendleton 3y ago

At least in a US context, the proximity advantage is often less about line losses than about the political realities of building transmission. We have way less transmission in the US than we're expected to need as we electrify, and the right-of-way acquisition, permitting, etc., to build new high-voltage transmission are really daunting. NIMBYs tend to hate it (somewhat understandably -- it's ugly), and every jurisdiction along the path of the proposed new line typically has its own permitting process which effectively grants it veto power (unlike gas pipelines, interestingly, where the federal government has permitting authority that supersedes local authority). A big potential advantage of these kinds of solutions is that you can just site the plant such that you can avoid building the transmission at all. Of course, nuclear obviously has its own NIMBY concerns, permitting issues, etc., so it's not a panacea.

belorn 3y ago
I find that NIMBY concerns can be very much connected to cost and profits. Looking at wind farms which has both a lot of noise and visible footprint, people becomes much more acceptable to those costs if the profits from the farm ends up with people who live there. An other comment here talked about how almost 80% of the energy bill in California are from fixed costs from primarily transmission. That is a lot of space to create economical incentive for people to have a plant located very near where they live. Similar, politicians are much more willing to be permissive with permits when there is an economical benefit for the region, as energy costs are quite significant bit of a regional budget.

jijijijij 3y ago

People don't even want wind turbines in their neighborhoods, I don't think they will be exactly thrilled about nuclear reactors...