3 ms·
> with solar and wind now far cheaper than nuclear ... does it even make sense for governments to go down this route? If this works without the sun shining the
by imoverclocked 2y ago
> with solar and wind now far cheaper than nuclear ... does it even make sense for governments to go down this route?
If this works without the sun shining then, yes, it makes sense. It is always good to have multiple sources of energy even if only as a form of redundancy. Our world depends on power.
- Tade0 2y ago> If this works without the sun shining HVDC lines are already mature enough that the cheapest route is to just wrap the Earth with them to form a planetary grid. The sun always shines somewhere.
- fooker 2y agoIf the earth was a uniform sphere without oceans and mountains, sure.
- zizee 2y agoIs this true? What are the costs per km for HVDC? Perhaps you're just talking about the Eurasian continent? What do the people of Western Europe do? Connect to the US? Even then, we've seen with the recent Russia-Ukraine war that control of energy is a useful geopolitical tool with Europe being softer on Russia because of their reliance on their gas.
- morsch 2y ago> reliance on their gas. ... and nuclear fuel and fuel rods from Russia. Which are still not being sanctioned btw. It's peanuts compared to the natural gas, admittedly, on the order of 700 million Euro per year.
- TheDudeMan 2y agoBunch of projects in the works. But building HVDC lines is not cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
- Tade0 2y agoSame goes for nuclear power plants really. A 2.5GW undersea HVDC line costs $2.5mln/km. The cheapest nuclear power plant in Europe is the Ostrovets power plant in Belarus, the cost of which was $11bln for a 2.4GW plant. For that money you could buy a 2.5GW HVDC line spanning the entire EU.