4 ms·

> Or the wind generators across the continent if you have to. Transmission losses are typically very substantial in most grids that are AC based. For example,

by mgh95 1y ago

> Or the wind generators across the continent if you have to. Transmission losses are typically very substantial in most grids that are AC based. For example, a cross-country power transmission with the USAs grid would result in ~36% losses (napkin math at about 20% loss per 1000km). Reality isn't as simple as "ship the electricity" unfortunately; it makes a lot of sense to keep generation near consumption. Edit: Since people like this comment, take a look at this: https://patternenergy.com/projects/southern-spirit-transmission/ https://patternenergy.com/projects/southern-spirit-transmiss...

mikestorrent 1y ago
Clearly something we'll need to get over. HVDC has something like 3% per 1000 KM loss - and when we start generating massive quantities of solar, 3% is going to be pretty acceptable.
- mgh95 1y ago
  You're talking about roughly ~5T (the prior estimates I'm aware of) in costs for replacing the grid with a HVDC transmission line. That's a massive cost and undertaking. It's much more likely we see an incremental transition to point-to-point transmission in major industrial corridors (Los Angeles/Irvine to IE solar generation capacity in the future, Lousiana Basin, North Texas to the gulf, etc.) where major benefits can be cost effectively be realized. A "full" transition is unlikely in our lifetimes due to the fact that the majority of the benefits can be reaped without needing such an expense.
  - mikestorrent 1y ago
    I never suggested replacing the entire network with HVDC. Point to point is exactly what I'd have recommended also.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    I mean this already exists on the west coast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie No reason we cant start expanding things like this to the east and west.
magicalhippo 1y ago
They also have limits on how much power they can transfer before the lines sag too much. Here in Norway the limitations of our rather poorly connected energy grid has become very apparent last few years, with 100x price difference between regions that aren't that far apart physically. While we've been paying "winter prices" during summer, up north they've shut down hydro plants since the prices there are so low it's less than operating costs.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  > They also have limits on how much power they can transfer before the lines sag too much. That can be helped by reconductoring. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/reconductoring-power-lines-transmission-capacity-goldman-gridlab/712643/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/reconductoring-power-lines-...
- m55au 1y ago
  I looked at tomorrow's (8th of October 2025) prices in Norway and Sweden. Northern Norway drops down to (negative!) -15 €/MWh at 17:45 while southern Sweden peaks at 190 €/MWh at the same time. So that's that for buying "from across the continent", let alone from your neighbors or even your own small country. I'm not sure that even the suggested reconductoring would help that much. To answer ajross: I'm quite sure that the shutdown of Ringhals and Barsebäck in southern Sweden has had a much greater impact on their and likely southern Norway's prices as well than building for example 10 times the equivalent solar capacity in Spain. It is not even about losses, but just the grid capacity. Theoretically the prices in Nord Pool (from southern France and western Ireland to northern Norway and eastern Baltics) should be equal. As pointed out, in practice they vary wildly. And in principle it can get even worse. It would not be too unrealistic to have negative prices in northern Norway and rolling blackouts in southern Sweden at the same time. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader how the latter can even happen when Sweden has enough capacity to meet its power demand at that time.
cycomanic 1y ago
Where does your 20% for 1000km come from? Transmission losses for long distance lines are much lower, e.g. the below is from wikipedia: > Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi), about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- mgh95 1y ago
  The US is currently an AC grid. HVDC is not currently in any meaningful use in North America (yet)
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    That may be true but the number quoted there is 6.7%/1000 km for AC which is very far from 20%/1000km.
    - abenga 1y ago
      And now some people will have read his comment but not yours, and this will be anti-renewable energy propaganda forever.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    There is a large HVDC corridor up the west coast, but I dont know of anything else.
mrguyorama 1y ago
>or example, a cross-country power transmission with the USAs grid would result in ~36% losses (napkin math at about 20% loss per 1000km). wait, is that it? I can get my electricity from a solar panel in Nevada, middle of winter, far longer than I have local sunlight for, for about 40 cents a kwh? And that's treated as an existential problem? Solar panels are so cheap we should be extremely overprovisioning anyway.
- xienze 1y ago
  > for about 40 cents a kwh? That’s fucking expensive if you don’t live in Germany or California! I pay a little less than a third of that for nuclear power. > And that's treated as an existential problem? Yes, tripling one’s electric bill is a problem.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    It is, but hopefully you could do the math and see my current electricity price is like 30 cents a kwh (generation and delivery), primarily because our state has not built out any generation infrastructure in a long long while. Not "triple" my electric bill. Likely, being able to buy from a generator across the country would REDUCE our prices. Allowing a solar farm in Nevada to compete in markets all over the country would be a large benefit to states like Maine. Most people are not as far from the western deserts as Maine is, so they would see smaller losses. Add to that, as others have pointed out, a HVDC line is much better than 30% loss to get from Nevada to Maine. So all this whinging is dumb. Lets build giant solar farms in Nevada deserts and ship it all across the country. Remember, I can't have local solar power past 4pm in January. This capability would replace wind or gas power The financial fact is that solar is cheap enough that de-rating all panels by 30% to support such a "cross country grid" would be inconsequential. It's the equivalent to buying solar panels from a couple years in the past. We should be building 2x what we "need" anyway.
pfdietz 1y ago
The transmission/distribution loss in the US, summed over the whole grid, is about 6%.

by mgh95 1y ago

mikestorrent 1y ago

Clearly something we'll need to get over. HVDC has something like 3% per 1000 KM loss - and when we start generating massive quantities of solar, 3% is going to be pretty acceptable.

mgh95 1y ago
You're talking about roughly ~5T (the prior estimates I'm aware of) in costs for replacing the grid with a HVDC transmission line. That's a massive cost and undertaking. It's much more likely we see an incremental transition to point-to-point transmission in major industrial corridors (Los Angeles/Irvine to IE solar generation capacity in the future, Lousiana Basin, North Texas to the gulf, etc.) where major benefits can be cost effectively be realized. A "full" transition is unlikely in our lifetimes due to the fact that the majority of the benefits can be reaped without needing such an expense.
- mikestorrent 1y ago
  I never suggested replacing the entire network with HVDC. Point to point is exactly what I'd have recommended also.
- pixl97 1y ago
  I mean this already exists on the west coast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie No reason we cant start expanding things like this to the east and west.

magicalhippo 1y ago

They also have limits on how much power they can transfer before the lines sag too much. Here in Norway the limitations of our rather poorly connected energy grid has become very apparent last few years, with 100x price difference between regions that aren't that far apart physically. While we've been paying "winter prices" during summer, up north they've shut down hydro plants since the prices there are so low it's less than operating costs.

pfdietz 1y ago
> They also have limits on how much power they can transfer before the lines sag too much. That can be helped by reconductoring. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/reconductoring-power-lines-transmission-capacity-goldman-gridlab/712643/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/reconductoring-power-lines-...
m55au 1y ago
I looked at tomorrow's (8th of October 2025) prices in Norway and Sweden. Northern Norway drops down to (negative!) -15 €/MWh at 17:45 while southern Sweden peaks at 190 €/MWh at the same time. So that's that for buying "from across the continent", let alone from your neighbors or even your own small country. I'm not sure that even the suggested reconductoring would help that much. To answer ajross: I'm quite sure that the shutdown of Ringhals and Barsebäck in southern Sweden has had a much greater impact on their and likely southern Norway's prices as well than building for example 10 times the equivalent solar capacity in Spain. It is not even about losses, but just the grid capacity. Theoretically the prices in Nord Pool (from southern France and western Ireland to northern Norway and eastern Baltics) should be equal. As pointed out, in practice they vary wildly. And in principle it can get even worse. It would not be too unrealistic to have negative prices in northern Norway and rolling blackouts in southern Sweden at the same time. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader how the latter can even happen when Sweden has enough capacity to meet its power demand at that time.

cycomanic 1y ago

Where does your 20% for 1000km come from? Transmission losses for long distance lines are much lower, e.g. the below is from wikipedia: > Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi), about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

mgh95 1y ago
The US is currently an AC grid. HVDC is not currently in any meaningful use in North America (yet)
- renewiltord 1y ago
  That may be true but the number quoted there is 6.7%/1000 km for AC which is very far from 20%/1000km.
  - abenga 1y ago
    And now some people will have read his comment but not yours, and this will be anti-renewable energy propaganda forever.
- pixl97 1y ago
  There is a large HVDC corridor up the west coast, but I dont know of anything else.

mrguyorama 1y ago

>or example, a cross-country power transmission with the USAs grid would result in ~36% losses (napkin math at about 20% loss per 1000km). wait, is that it? I can get my electricity from a solar panel in Nevada, middle of winter, far longer than I have local sunlight for, for about 40 cents a kwh? And that's treated as an existential problem? Solar panels are so cheap we should be extremely overprovisioning anyway.

xienze 1y ago
> for about 40 cents a kwh? That’s fucking expensive if you don’t live in Germany or California! I pay a little less than a third of that for nuclear power. > And that's treated as an existential problem? Yes, tripling one’s electric bill is a problem.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  It is, but hopefully you could do the math and see my current electricity price is like 30 cents a kwh (generation and delivery), primarily because our state has not built out any generation infrastructure in a long long while. Not "triple" my electric bill. Likely, being able to buy from a generator across the country would REDUCE our prices. Allowing a solar farm in Nevada to compete in markets all over the country would be a large benefit to states like Maine. Most people are not as far from the western deserts as Maine is, so they would see smaller losses. Add to that, as others have pointed out, a HVDC line is much better than 30% loss to get from Nevada to Maine. So all this whinging is dumb. Lets build giant solar farms in Nevada deserts and ship it all across the country. Remember, I can't have local solar power past 4pm in January. This capability would replace wind or gas power The financial fact is that solar is cheap enough that de-rating all panels by 30% to support such a "cross country grid" would be inconsequential. It's the equivalent to buying solar panels from a couple years in the past. We should be building 2x what we "need" anyway.

pfdietz 1y ago

The transmission/distribution loss in the US, summed over the whole grid, is about 6%.