← Back to context

Comment by fooker

2 days ago

We would need impractically high voltages to minimize power loss over long distances.

Maybe something like microwave transmission or cheap superconductors will solve it.

5 comments

fooker

Reply
Tade0  2 days ago

The loss is not that much - approximately 3.5% per 1000km. IIRC the Changji-Guquan HVDC line reported around 8% over 3300km thanks to working at 1100kV.

Extend that to 10k km and you're looking at approximately 25%, but if it's surplus solar, who cares?

Such a line costs as much as a highway broadly speaking, so it's not impossible to build.

  • mrguyorama  2 days ago

    For reference, that would give me in Maine the ability to buy power from a solar farm in Arizona or other literally unutilized deserts.

    Local power costs are over 30 cents per KWh, so that could be pretty competitive.

    The problem is that, no profit based organization will ever build "surplus" solar to enable that kind of thing. If we want surplus power, if we want a strong grid, if we want cheap power, if we want to enable the ability to quite literally waste solar power on inefficient processes (including things like industrial processes that produce less CO2 or generating hydrogen or methane as long term energy storage), we have to get the government to make it happen

    But, uh, we hired people who would rather spend $170 billion on harassing random cities and brown people so..... Everyone get ready to pay absurd rates for electricity to support outdated businesses that have been directing American energy policy since Reagan, including paying about 60k coal miners in west virginia for a resource that is economically inferior to other fossil fuels but because they voted for a democrat once they now get a stranglehold on the US economy.

    • cycomanic  2 days ago

      > For reference, that would give me in Maine the ability to buy power from a solar farm in Arizona or other literally unutilized deserts. > > Local power costs are over 30 cents per KWh, so that could be pretty competitive. > > The problem is that, no profit based organization will ever build "surplus" solar to enable that kind of thing. If we want surplus power, if we want a strong grid, if we want cheap power, if we want to enable the ability to quite literally waste solar power on inefficient processes (including things like industrial processes that produce less CO2 or generating hydrogen or methane as long term energy storage), we have to get the government to make it happen >

      I think what we seeing in a lot of places now is quite the opposite. There are significant opportunities for arbitrage, so private entities are building HVDC lines in Europe for example (without special subsidies over the usual ones that all big infrastructure always seems to get AFAIK). That's part of the beauty of the renewables revolution it breaks up the stronghold that only a few big corps held over generation.

    • cycomanic  2 days ago

      > For reference, that would give me in Maine the ability to buy power from a solar farm in Arizona or other literally unutilized deserts. > > Local power costs are over 30 cents per KWh, so that could be pretty competitive. > > The problem is that, no profit based organization will ever build "surplus" solar to enable that kind of thing. If we want surplus power, if we want a strong grid, if we want cheap power, if we want to enable the ability to quite literally waste solar power on inefficient processes (including things like industrial processes that produce less CO2 or generating hydrogen or methane as long term energy storage), we have to get the government to make it happen

      There are huge orbortunities for arbitrage in these areas. That's why in Europe there has been significant investment into HVDC connections recently. AFAIK they are mostly (all? ) build privately without special government subsidies (over the usual ones that all large infrastructure projects always seem to get). I think this partly the beauty of the renewable revolution, it