4 ms·

Can somebody explain to me the part of the article where it says you have to convert AC to DC to travel long distances (for far offshore wind power)? I underst

Can somebody explain to me the part of the article where it says you have to convert AC to DC to travel long distances (for far offshore wind power)? I understood it to be the exact opposite, that AC could go long distances without major loss and DC needed a new station every few blocks.

eigenvector 14y ago
You don't 'need' to convert it, but HVDC transmission is emerging as more efficient and cost-effective than conventional HVAC transmission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- rmccue 14y ago
  From what I gather from the Wikipedia page, it's due to the transmission cables being underwater and hence having a much larger capacitance, which is a larger loss than normal DC loss. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) So, while AC is still more beneficial for transmission via cables in air/ground, DC appears to have less overall loss for underwater transmission.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    DC is always more efficent to transfer. But it was difficult to efficiently convert to high voltage and back so you only did it when necessary. The reason underwater links (eg France-UK) were commonly DC is that they linked countries whose grid wasn't synchronised - the same reason long distance grids in the US are DC
  - vitaminj 14y ago
    By virtue of their tight bundling, all composite multi-core cables have high capacitances. However, onshore AC transmission is typically run on overhead lines, with large line spacings and thus capacitance isn't as much of a problem.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]