3 ms·
I cannot help but wonder what the answers are to these points: > Norwegians are forgetting that domestically produced power is not always cheaper. Whenever the
by ryao 2y ago
I cannot help but wonder what the answers are to these points:
> Norwegians are forgetting that domestically produced power is not always cheaper. Whenever the current in the cables flows towards them, it helps reduce high prices.
Norway could add some diodes to the cables so that it only imports and does not export.
> And even though Norway exports more power than it imports, that is fantastic for domestic energy producers. Norway’s state-owned power firms have been raking it in, which is one of the reasons the government can afford to subsidise household prices.
Wholesale prices would plummet if this energy had nowhere to go. Getting wholesale prices down seems to be the goal here, so why not keep the energy trapped and let the wholesale prices drop? If they wholesale prices drop, you would expect that to help pay for lower household prices.
These are not my actual views. I just feel that the articles' author did not address these points, so I decided to raise them here.
- grayhatter 2y ago> Norway could add some diodes to the cables so that it only imports and does not export. Does norway really transfer power via DC? that can't be true can it?
- ryao 2y agoThe map on Wikipedia shows several HVDC links exiting Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current HVDC for long distance power sharing makes sense since it is generally more efficient than HVAC. On land, HVDC is more efficient beyond ~500km, but underwater, HVDC is more efficient beyond ~50km: https://www.electricaldeck.com/2021/08/comparison-between-hvdc-and-hvac-transmission-system.html https://www.electricaldeck.com/2021/08/comparison-between-hv... Beyond the efficiency benefit, HVDC easily handles transfer of power between grids operating at different frequencies. There are also several other benefits documented at that second link.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoThe Economist did address these, their basic argument is that trade is a win-win. Usually when these win-wins go wrong they have the gains filtered off by a middleman or monopolist but in this case it seems the government uses the money earned to subsidize household bills which means they do get the benefit of trade. Stopping the trade therefore means higher prices for domestic consumers. This is the basic point the article makes repeatedly.
- ryao 2y agoIt did not seem to directly address how one scenario is better than the other. The article felt like “do it this way; it is better and don’t worry how”. I should stress that I am only saying this because I find the omission curious. I do not have any opinion either way at this time.