8 ms·

At $4M per km, a 4,300 km HVDC cable would cost a staggering $17.2 billion to import 1.75 GW of energy. Interestingly, building a Shin-Kori equivalent nuclear p

At $4M per km, a 4,300 km HVDC cable would cost a staggering $17.2 billion to import 1.75 GW of energy. Interestingly, building a Shin-Kori equivalent nuclear plant [1],[2] on a nearby island [3] would be significantly cheaper. If they can afford such a cable, it raises the question of whether it's even the best solution in the first place. [4] [1] Aerial view of the plant: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kori+Nuclear+Power+Plant/@35.3215847,129.2913255,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x356880d77ae3bc29:0x1131ba41efec1672!8m2!3d35.3211251!4d129.290671!16s%2Fm%2F02v_18h?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kori+Nuclear+Power+Plant/@... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant [3] Possible location, suitable by size: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lazarus+Island/@1.2057214,103.716372,931m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x31da1ee8b3f07ab9:0x734f010b626b98ce!8m2!3d1.2229878!4d103.8542344!16s%2Fg%2F11cl_599h5?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lazarus+Island/@1.2057214,... [4] Singapore is not denying such possibility https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/nuclear-energy-fusion-fission-experts-deployment-timeline-tan-see-leng-parliament-4239546 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/nuclear-energy-fus...

JimDabell 2y ago
Lazarus would be a horrible place for that kind of thing. It would destroy a nice, relatively untouched spot of nature that’s got a lot of biodiversity. Singapore does use islands for this kind of thing, but this would be better placed on Jurong Island (which is already entirely industrial) or perhaps Pulau Tekong (which is currently for military use only). Alternatively, land reclamation is not unknown to Singapore, and there’s already big land reclamation plans underway in the coming years.
- torginus 2y ago
  I wonder if anyone other than the Russians makes one of those floating nuclear power plants that can be moored at sea?
  - sofixa 2y ago
    The US and France do too, but they call them nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
    - torginus 2y ago
      That's a bit different though - those reactors use closed cycle liquid sodium coolant, and are not made for supplying power on shore. I'm talking about something like this: https://spectrum.ieee.org/is-the-world-ready-for-floating-nuclear-power-stations https://spectrum.ieee.org/is-the-world-ready-for-floating-nu...
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        Lol they do not use liquid sodium. They are PWRs. Rickover would spin in his grave.
        dctoedt 2y ago
        > they do not use liquid sodium. They are PWRs. Rickover would spin in his grave. Except for the early days of the (one-off) USS Seawolf, before its liquid-sodium reactor was replaced by a LWR. But yes, the KOG would surely come roaring out of his coffin screaming, "WTF are you idiots doing — wasn't once enough?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)
  - bbojan 2y ago
    Thorcon [https://thorconpower.com/ https://thorconpower.com/] has a plan for this, but they're still years away.
- nmfisher 2y ago
  Can't they just float them in the sea? Or does the salt water corrode the panels?
MichaelZuo 2y ago
It would seem to only make sense economically if Australia was paying for the majority of the costs.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mppm 2y ago
Do you have a reference for that $17.2 billion cost? I've seen figures between 24-30 billion USD for the whole project -- solar farm, batteries, local infrastructure to supply Darwin and the subsea cable to Singapore. That would make the economics of this look merely stupid rather than insane.
feisty0630 2y ago
The strangest part of this is that the cable will be run to Darwin, which isn't connected to Australia's national grid. So the city's electrical grid will be connected to a foreign country 4,300km away before it's connected to the Australian grid (approx. 2,100km away by road).
ben_w 2y ago
Depends how long the cable lasts, maintenance costs. Some of the cables that start forest fires in CA have been there for a century by that point. Even at 17e9 USD, if this lasts a century, and is in full use for that time, it's adding 1.1¢/kWh to the price of delivery: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.75%20GW%2A100%20years%20%2F%2017bn%20USD%20in%20USD%2FkWh http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.75%20GW%2A100%20years... I could easily imagine them doing this, and another similar one to India or twice as far to Kenya, and getting a decent amount of PV at night as a consequence. (OTOH, as I'm not a grid or marine engineer, I am ready to be mocked for suggesting an underwater cable may last a century).
- Salgat 2y ago
  Mind you that's completely ignoring the opportunity cost of investing that initial cost elsewhere.
  - 7952 2y ago
    But it seems unlikely that this kind of private capital would be available for such a nuclear project. Nor would the expertise or industrial capacity be the same.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  I don't know if anyone would mock you, but no, it won't last 100 years. Not without a whole lot of work and a lot of things going exactly right for a hundred years. Also, why, on earth, would anyone in Kenya need solar energy from Australia? It has some of the best wind resources on the planet in the Rift Valley alone. Not to mention its own ridiculously high levels of solar available. And all that before we've even talked about the expense and difficulty of laying such a line. Add in unparalleled mineral availability in Africa and the Chinese building out manufacturing in Kenya. (Heck, all over the EAC actually.) I just have a hard time even seeing storage batteries as much of a problem for Kenya in the near future. You need places like Singapore. Where the resources are unequal to the need for this whole thing to make sense.
  - 2y ago
alephnerd 2y ago
You can't build a Nuclear Plant on Sudong Island. Sudong Island is fairly important for the Singaporean Armed Forces as a forward landing strip for the SCS. In fact, the SAF is in the process of expanding the military presence and use of Sudong Island [0] [0] - https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-land-to-be-reclaimed-off-pulau-sudong-works-will-result-in-loss-of-marine-habitats-report https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-land-to-be-recla...
fasa99 2y ago
Forget about the nuclear plant, the interesting thing here is geopolitics. Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia back in the day straight up. The US equivalent would be "Hey Detroit, you're a mess, you're no longer part of the US, you're now the city state of Detroit" So that means pragmatically Malaysia is about as far away as New Jersey from New York City (i.e. very close by). They're this more western gem completely surrounded on all sides by Muslim countries e.g. Indonesia as well. And now drawing this loooonnnggg power line past all these places to the Aussies. Clearly the geopolitical pressure must be massive if they are spending this vast sum, which COULD BE much less, just to bypass all the neighbors. Not that the US understands Singapore geopolitics very well - whenever a Singaporean such as the tik tok CEO is hauled in front of congress they get grilled on which part of China they're from.

JimDabell 2y ago

Lazarus would be a horrible place for that kind of thing. It would destroy a nice, relatively untouched spot of nature that’s got a lot of biodiversity. Singapore does use islands for this kind of thing, but this would be better placed on Jurong Island (which is already entirely industrial) or perhaps Pulau Tekong (which is currently for military use only). Alternatively, land reclamation is not unknown to Singapore, and there’s already big land reclamation plans underway in the coming years.

torginus 2y ago
I wonder if anyone other than the Russians makes one of those floating nuclear power plants that can be moored at sea?
- sofixa 2y ago
  The US and France do too, but they call them nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
  - torginus 2y ago
    That's a bit different though - those reactors use closed cycle liquid sodium coolant, and are not made for supplying power on shore. I'm talking about something like this: https://spectrum.ieee.org/is-the-world-ready-for-floating-nuclear-power-stations https://spectrum.ieee.org/is-the-world-ready-for-floating-nu...
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Lol they do not use liquid sodium. They are PWRs. Rickover would spin in his grave.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        > they do not use liquid sodium. They are PWRs. Rickover would spin in his grave. Except for the early days of the (one-off) USS Seawolf, before its liquid-sodium reactor was replaced by a LWR. But yes, the KOG would surely come roaring out of his coffin screaming, "WTF are you idiots doing — wasn't once enough?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)
- bbojan 2y ago
  Thorcon [https://thorconpower.com/ https://thorconpower.com/] has a plan for this, but they're still years away.
nmfisher 2y ago
Can't they just float them in the sea? Or does the salt water corrode the panels?

MichaelZuo 2y ago

It would seem to only make sense economically if Australia was paying for the majority of the costs.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mppm 2y ago

Do you have a reference for that $17.2 billion cost? I've seen figures between 24-30 billion USD for the whole project -- solar farm, batteries, local infrastructure to supply Darwin and the subsea cable to Singapore. That would make the economics of this look merely stupid rather than insane.

feisty0630 2y ago

The strangest part of this is that the cable will be run to Darwin, which isn't connected to Australia's national grid. So the city's electrical grid will be connected to a foreign country 4,300km away before it's connected to the Australian grid (approx. 2,100km away by road).

ben_w 2y ago

Depends how long the cable lasts, maintenance costs. Some of the cables that start forest fires in CA have been there for a century by that point. Even at 17e9 USD, if this lasts a century, and is in full use for that time, it's adding 1.1¢/kWh to the price of delivery: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.75%20GW%2A100%20years%20%2F%2017bn%20USD%20in%20USD%2FkWh http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.75%20GW%2A100%20years... I could easily imagine them doing this, and another similar one to India or twice as far to Kenya, and getting a decent amount of PV at night as a consequence. (OTOH, as I'm not a grid or marine engineer, I am ready to be mocked for suggesting an underwater cable may last a century).

Salgat 2y ago
Mind you that's completely ignoring the opportunity cost of investing that initial cost elsewhere.
- 7952 2y ago
  But it seems unlikely that this kind of private capital would be available for such a nuclear project. Nor would the expertise or industrial capacity be the same.
bilbo0s 2y ago
I don't know if anyone would mock you, but no, it won't last 100 years. Not without a whole lot of work and a lot of things going exactly right for a hundred years. Also, why, on earth, would anyone in Kenya need solar energy from Australia? It has some of the best wind resources on the planet in the Rift Valley alone. Not to mention its own ridiculously high levels of solar available. And all that before we've even talked about the expense and difficulty of laying such a line. Add in unparalleled mineral availability in Africa and the Chinese building out manufacturing in Kenya. (Heck, all over the EAC actually.) I just have a hard time even seeing storage batteries as much of a problem for Kenya in the near future. You need places like Singapore. Where the resources are unequal to the need for this whole thing to make sense.
- 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

You can't build a Nuclear Plant on Sudong Island. Sudong Island is fairly important for the Singaporean Armed Forces as a forward landing strip for the SCS. In fact, the SAF is in the process of expanding the military presence and use of Sudong Island [0] [0] - https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-land-to-be-reclaimed-off-pulau-sudong-works-will-result-in-loss-of-marine-habitats-report https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-land-to-be-recla...

fasa99 2y ago

Forget about the nuclear plant, the interesting thing here is geopolitics. Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia back in the day straight up. The US equivalent would be "Hey Detroit, you're a mess, you're no longer part of the US, you're now the city state of Detroit" So that means pragmatically Malaysia is about as far away as New Jersey from New York City (i.e. very close by). They're this more western gem completely surrounded on all sides by Muslim countries e.g. Indonesia as well. And now drawing this loooonnnggg power line past all these places to the Aussies. Clearly the geopolitical pressure must be massive if they are spending this vast sum, which COULD BE much less, just to bypass all the neighbors. Not that the US understands Singapore geopolitics very well - whenever a Singaporean such as the tik tok CEO is hauled in front of congress they get grilled on which part of China they're from.