Are Transcontinental, Submarine Supergrids the Future of Energy? (bloomberg.com) 222
Bloomberg Businessweek reports on "renewed interest in cables that can power consumers in one country with electricity generated hundreds, even thousands, of miles away in another" and possibly even transcontinental, submarine electricity superhighways:
Coal, gas and even nuclear plants can be built close to the markets they serve, but the utility-scale solar and wind farms many believe essential to meet climate targets often can't. They need to be put wherever the wind and sun are strongest, which can be hundreds or thousands of miles from urban centers. Long cables can also connect peak afternoon solar power in one time zone to peak evening demand in another, reducing the price volatility caused by mismatches in supply and demand as well as the need for fossil-fueled back up capacity when the sun or wind fade. As countries phase out carbon to meet climate goals, they'll have to spend at least $14 trillion to strengthen grids by 2050, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That's only a little shy of projected spending on new renewable generation capacity and it's increasingly clear that high- and ultra-high-voltage direct current lines will play a part in the transition.
The question is how international will they be...?
The article points out that in theory, Mongolia's Gobi desert "has potential to deliver 2.6 terawatts of wind and solar power — more than double the U.S.'s entire installed power generation capacity — to a group of Asian powerhouse economies that together produce well over a third of global carbon emissions..." The same goes for the U.S., where with the right infrastructure, New York could tap into sun- and wind-rich resources from the South and Midwest. An even more ambitious vision would access power from as far afield as Canada or Chile's Atacama Desert, which has the world's highest known levels of solar power potential per square meter. Jeremy Rifkin, a U.S. economist who has become the go-to figure for countries looking to remake their infrastructure for the digital and renewable future, sees potential for a single, 1.1 billion-person electricity market in the Americas that would be almost as big as China's. Rifkin has advised Germany and the EU, as well as China...
Persuading countries to rely on each other to keep the lights on is tough, but the universal, yet intermittent nature of solar and wind energy also makes it inevitable, according to Rifkin. "This isn't the geopolitics of fossil fuels," owned by some and bought by others, he says. "It is biosphere politics, based on geography. Wind and sun force sharing...."
If these supergrids don't get built, it will be because their time has both come and gone. Not only are they expensive, politically difficult, and unpopular — they have to cross a lot of backyards — their focus on mega-power installations seems outdated to some. Distributed microgeneration as close to home as your rooftop, battery storage, and transportable hydrogen all offer competing solutions to the delivery problems supergrids aim to solve.
The question is how international will they be...?
The article points out that in theory, Mongolia's Gobi desert "has potential to deliver 2.6 terawatts of wind and solar power — more than double the U.S.'s entire installed power generation capacity — to a group of Asian powerhouse economies that together produce well over a third of global carbon emissions..." The same goes for the U.S., where with the right infrastructure, New York could tap into sun- and wind-rich resources from the South and Midwest. An even more ambitious vision would access power from as far afield as Canada or Chile's Atacama Desert, which has the world's highest known levels of solar power potential per square meter. Jeremy Rifkin, a U.S. economist who has become the go-to figure for countries looking to remake their infrastructure for the digital and renewable future, sees potential for a single, 1.1 billion-person electricity market in the Americas that would be almost as big as China's. Rifkin has advised Germany and the EU, as well as China...
Persuading countries to rely on each other to keep the lights on is tough, but the universal, yet intermittent nature of solar and wind energy also makes it inevitable, according to Rifkin. "This isn't the geopolitics of fossil fuels," owned by some and bought by others, he says. "It is biosphere politics, based on geography. Wind and sun force sharing...."
If these supergrids don't get built, it will be because their time has both come and gone. Not only are they expensive, politically difficult, and unpopular — they have to cross a lot of backyards — their focus on mega-power installations seems outdated to some. Distributed microgeneration as close to home as your rooftop, battery storage, and transportable hydrogen all offer competing solutions to the delivery problems supergrids aim to solve.
Outdated? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Outdated? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Relying on another country for power with cables that any baddie can cut and claim an innocent anchor drop while ideas like this might work in a world where everyone is peaceful and altruistic on this world it is only asking for trouble
Even here in the supposedly civilized world, expecting your current good neighbors to always be good neighbors is dumb. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
Relying on another country for power with cables that any baddie can cut and claim an innocent anchor drop while ideas like this might work in a world where everyone is peaceful and altruistic on this world it is only asking for trouble
Heh. We're not worried about utility companies being internet facing, why are we worried about any threat that involves leaving the house?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like relying on a planet that some baddie can poison the atmosphere in and change the climate to make it inhabitable? Yeah, pretty stupid that.
Re: Outdated? Nah. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of countries already rely on others for such vital things as food, oil, vehicles, aircraft, weapons, water, microchips or important metals.
One difference is however that you can have rather long lasting emergency stockpiles of all these products. If you get (much of your) electricity from an unstable country you will be without power the moment it is cut off. And for most of the other products that you mention you will have time to adjust your consumption or find alternative suppliers in case the supply is terminated.
But of course the stability of your trading partners is a factor that you must include when deciding to trade with them. For ele
Countries are outdated. (Score:2)
You're reasoning in "countries" and "wars". That model is outdated. We are reasoning at the "planet" and "species survival" scales.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a movie plot threat though. Think about what is involved.
They need to send a sub to locate the cable and then cut it. The ocean is constantly monitored by hydrophones so the chances of this going unnoticed are slim, especially the cutting part.
Modern cables aren't just a big long copper wire, they have build in sensors for monitoring for to help locate problems. They can be repaired relatively quickly.
Also there is usually more than one, so the loss of one isn't critical. It does attract attention th
Re: (Score:2)
They need to send a sub to locate the cable and then cut it. The ocean is constantly monitored by hydrophones so the chances of this going unnoticed are slim, especially the cutting part.
Locating the cable is probably trivial and can be done by surface "research vessels" months or years in advance without raising any suspicions. And no, "the ocean" is not monitored by hydrophones. A tiny portion of it is. And what if the submarine just places remote controlled or timed explosives on the cable? And does that for a number of cables and a number of locations along the cable with the first and last explosive going off first so that the sensors that would tell you where the other breaks are do n
Re: (Score:2)
A competent adversary would as far as I can se be able to pretty much cripple your power import/export through these cables for many months with little effort.
Okay, let's say you are right. Every nation with half decent subs plants their own explosives on these cables and everyone is ready to push their button and cut the other side off.
Presumably they do the same for all the other cables, like communications and internet.
How does it actually help anyone? It might do some economic damage, but it's not going to take out military defences or retaliation capability. It would just be a pointless escalation of hostilities that achieves little beyond making the other s
Re: (Score:2)
A competent adversary would as far as I can se be able to pretty much cripple your power import/export through these cables for many months with little effort.
Okay, let's say you are right. Every nation with half decent subs plants their own explosives on these cables and everyone is ready to push their button and cut the other side off.
Presumably they do the same for all the other cables, like communications and internet.
How does it actually help anyone? It might do some economic damage, but it's not going to take out military defences or retaliation capability. It would just be a pointless escalation of hostilities that achieves little beyond making the other side start with the same cold war spy novel bullshit in retaliation.
Power production and distribution is a prime target in conflicts and have been that for a long time. Extremely critical facilities may have backup power but often it is not designed to provide power for extended periods and many resources have to be diverted to alleviate the impact of losing power to facilities such as water plants and medical care facilities. Just think of what would actually work in your home if the power was cut to both your home and to the utilities to your home.
But you are right in the
Re: (Score:2)
Power production and distribution is a prime target in conflicts and have been that for a long time. Actually no. In WWII power production facilities were intentionally NOT TARGETED. Because after you have conquered and subdued the country, you need the power. And power infrastructure is the most complex thing to rebuild.
The idea that a nuke takes > 10. to 15 years to build because of lawsuits: is just a myth. The construction itself rarely is quicker than 10 years. Same for "a simple coal plant". Some g
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody would have backup power generation available for a power loss on this scale.
That is nonsense. Everyone will have the back up power.
Or do you think the coal plants Germany has shut down, are gone? They are mothballed that is all. It would probably take a week to get the coal to power them up, though. But there are mothballed plants, e.g. the big one at the entrance to Frankfurts main rail station, that have a cubic km of coal on a small hill outside of the plant.
Re: (Score:2)
The global internet works because 'any baddie' doesn't keep cutting internet cables.
Europe already has plenty of country to country undersea power cables, in the UK we have links to France's and Norway's grids and Have been mulling over* grid links to Iceland. I don't see linking to solar farms in Morocco or Turkey being a problem.
*Latest UK to Iceland: https://www.oedigital.com/news... [oedigital.com]
Right now much of Europe is relying on Russia for Natural Gas, that is both a bad idea with respects to climate change and
Re: (Score:2)
The global internet works because 'any baddie' doesn't keep cutting internet cables.
And because it is designed to be resilient against such attacks. Traffic will be routed through other cables if some of them disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
that is both a bad idea with respects to climate change and a bad idea for political reasons.
It is actually a good idea for political reasons. That is why we are doing it. (*facepalm*)
There are many national and international gas and oil pipelines, 'any baddie' hasn't stopped those either. ... you ave no excuse for your utter lack of knowledge. It even was on /.
You seem to be out of the loop. Where is that rock you are living under?
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] Oh
Re: (Score:2)
And? Do you think that's going to stop anyone build new pipelines? it's besides the point. They hacked something, they didn't damage the pipeline. Computers should be secured, that's a separate issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Any baddie can take out transmission towers or substations or generating stations. What is your point?
A transoceanic transmission line is much easier to take out, and by actions that are not easy to classify as hostile action. Blowing up a transmission line inside the US is openly obvious as an act of war
Re: (Score:2)
How do you locate and destroy a cable hundreds or thousands of feet underwater? Taking out a tower is much easier.
Re: (Score:3)
$264 (and 60Hz him) (Score:3)
> How do you locate and destroy a cable hundreds of feet underwater
Well, if I wasn't broadcasting by humming 60 Hz at several hundred thousand volts, through salt water, it would be slightly harder. I'd need to set my anchor to the "up" position after attaching it to this 300' feet of rope I'd get at Home Depot $264, then drag it along the appropriate area.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ev... [homedepot.com]
Because it's got a few hundred thousand volts of 60 Hz hum, I'd spend another $50 to attach this wire to the anchor,
Re: (Score:2)
compared to just Googling high- and ultra-high-voltage direct current lines [google.com] directly from the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an existing AC undersea cable [wikipedia.org] connecting Greece to Crete that has a max depth of 1000 meters (3280 feet). It's the longest one in the world. How does that compare to your 300 feet? If that kind of exaggeration is your thing, I bet anyone you date will be extremely disappointed.
Near the shore undersea cables are placed where they avoid hazards like shipping and ocean bottom fishing. T
Re: (Score:3)
> There is an existing AC undersea cable [wikipedia.org] connecting Greece to Crete that has a max depth of 1000 meters (3280 feet)
Are you unaware of what the word "maximum" means?
Yes, it may only take a few weeks to replace a section that's "only" 300 feet underwater. For the country to be without power (or sufficient power) for a couple weeks is no problem, right?
Yep, down for six months (Score:2)
For those who don't bother to click the link, some interesting parts:
-- ... ... has been down since December, leaving many Tasmanians without energy and internet services.
The cable repairs have been hit with months-long delays: In March, Basslink revealed that excess water damage into its cable would result in repairs not being completed until mid-June. Prior to this, Basslink had said repairs would be done by late May .
The Basslink Interconnector
--
Re: (Score:2)
Greece to Crete that has a max depth of 1000 meters (3280 feet). It's the longest one in the world.
This is most certainly not the longest one in the world. Let me guess: your are greek?
Read the first sentence of your own link (Score:3)
Try reading the very first sentence on the page you linked.
If a full sentence is too much for you to comprehend, try reading even the last few words of the first sentence.
Undersea cables exist for both DC and AC.
Which is more common, according to your own link?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you want to read up, what such a cable does. ...
Hint: it transports an electric current. The rest I leave to you to figure
Re: Outdated? Nah. (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not talking about power poles along the street here, but the huge transmission towers. Taking out one of these is an obvious act, not something your grandma could do backing up her Kia.
Re: Outdated? Nah. (Score:2)
Re: Outdated? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Encased in concrete and buried in any depth of water that a ship could "accidentally" drag an anchor. In very deep water you armour them.
Someone determined enough could cut one in deep water, but not without the resources of at least a middle power. That's safer than pretty much any energy infrastructure that exists today.
Re: (Score:3)
concrete encased underwater cables is a technology that does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to bring up France and the UK, it's more pertinent to observe that they've been trading electricity by submarine cable since 1961. Yes, there are occasional problems due to dragging anchors. So what? You build some redundancy into a well-engineered system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are occasional problems due to dragging anchors.
That is extremely unlikely.
a) the cables are underground, and not simply on top of the sea floor
b) no one is anchoring in the middle of the channel, what would that be good for?
Take b) with a grain of salt. There are emergencies thinkable where you have a good reason to drop your anchors - but I'm not aware of any in recent decades.
We must go higher (Score:5, Interesting)
"all" that's needed to make this happen is about twice the voltage, wider spacing, and a lot of high-temperature low-sag lines. That's a huge investment but we have to face up to the fact that solar+storage is already at or near parity with coal. (and that's not even considering the externalized cost of pollution from coal) Building new coal plants now would cost more over the next 30 years than building solar infrastructure now for the same amount of power. And since the Biden administration is hell bent on spending ALL the money it's much better spent on solar now than most other uses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't there electricity loss when it's transmitted over long distance?
Re: (Score:2)
Transporting it also entails inefficiencies, though.
Problem is trust (Score:2)
Power issues in one area can cause black outs in the entire grid. Canada and US have this issue, as we trust Canada and they trust us.
Even so in 2003 a blackout struck both Canada and the North East US. That was an accident, but it could be intentional if opposing countries were involved. Think Russia and Ukraine.
It takes very good, long standing, trusting relationships to share an electrical grid.
Power to the people ! (Score:2)
WTF don't people realise, the era of the centralised large scale power plant is over.
Power to the people !
We can now generate and store power for all purposes with small scale, local equipment.
Power is as cheap as sunshine and wind.
It came from a fusion reactor (the sun) and was transmitted by light,
we can convert it into electricity and store it, then use it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a balance though. Oftentimes, larger power plants have economies of scale, where a larger engine that generates 100MW of power is more economical than 100 smaller engines generating 1 MW.
The ideal is "all the above" on the grid, but don't discount the large plants. We need everything. Finland has dedicated natural gas plants whose only job is to fire up to get the power plants which require power existing on the grid to start up. The more types of power, the better, with an emphasis on renewabl
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of power, if you have to store it, has to include the cost of the batteries amortized over their life. For grid scale batteries I think it is like 5 cents per kWh just for the batteries and neglecting all other costs. If you use a tesla powerwall it will be much more than that because on a dollar/kWh basis, the powerwall is pretty expensive.
Small scale off-grid power is actually way more expensive than grid power, even here in California which has some of the highest grid prices of anywhere in the
Re: (Score:2)
Most power demand is in cities, and yet densely populated cities have the least scope for local power generation.
The limited and expensive surface area make solar and wind impractical. Sure some buildings can have rooftop solar, but apartment blocks tend to be tall and thin so the power consumption massively outstrips the limited solar capacity you can put on the roof.
Cities don't want nuclear or fossil burning plants nearby, as the resulting emissions or perceived risks make them unpopular.
No. (Score:2)
UHVDC is useful but only in specific contexts. As such, it is used but all the equipment is highly specialized and very proprietary. Furthermore, it's generally not a good idea to "put all your eggs in one basket" as someone could "accidentally" cut off your electricity. People have suggested it could be used in the US for sending solar power across the continent and while a neat idea it's not highly economical, robust enough and requires both cooperation and relying on others. Self-reliance is some sor
Re: (Score:3)
BSing much? HVDC has been used for nearly a century and is used world-wide right now.
Gosh cooperating with other people is risky? The entire economy both national and international depends on very high levels of cooperation - no one makes everything in one location any more, not even in China. Supply chains are global and we routinely depend on factories in Thailand, Taiwan and South Korea and Chinese shipping to get parts to us just in time. That can be a little risky in the global economy is disrupted, or
Re: (Score:2)
HVDC has been used for nearly a century and is used world-wide right now.
I'm perfectly aware that it's been in use since the 1930s in Europe.
Gosh cooperating with other people is risky? The entire economy both national and international depends on very high levels of cooperation
Precisely why I referred to it as being mythical. The problem isn't the reality, it's perception.
Supply chains are global and we routinely depend on factories in [...]. That can be a little risky in the global economy is disrupted
Which is precisely the argument that will be made. I'm not saying it's a legitimate argument, I'm saying this is the resistance you can expect if a serious proposal were put forth.
You didn't have any actual arguments against this, but is this really the best you could do?
Projects are often quashed not because of facts but because of public perception. Why bother with any of this when nuclear is a far better option to start with? Th
Re: (Score:2)
The summary’s premise is garbage, but north-south HVDC has huge opportunities for seasonal buffering of solar and other resources. Europe:Africa, NorthAmerica:SouthAmerica are the obvious ones
Re: (Score:2)
And East-West allows time shifting.
It's not just renewables. (Score:2)
A super-grid would also eliminate many of the controversial siting decisions for nuclear plants.
That could also change local attitudes towards long term waste storage. You could build the plants in the county where the storage facility is built, creating jobs and eliminating the need for local property taxes, then ship the power all the way across the country.
I like it. (Score:2)
I like the idea of having a nuclear plants in isolated areas and pushing the power a few hundred miles. Forget about trying to convince people and politicians, just found a completely new area and then push the power to where you want it. It's backwards but if it avoids the pitfalls of traditional nuclear (endless lawsuits) then why not?
Re: (Score:2)
The distances between some not so randomly picked cities might interest you:
Helsinki - Chernobyl: 647.80 mi (1,042.54 km)
Munich - Chernobyl: 858.87 mi (1,382.21 km) (Interesting that Helsinki is closer, a bit counterintuitive looking at a mercator map)
Madrid - Chernobyl: Distance: 858.87 mi (1,382.21 km)
So, what is in your eyes a save place? How far away would you place the nukes?
Hint: around Munich deer, boar and mushrooms are not save to eat. 35 years after the disaster ... so go figure.
Time shifting solar (Score:3)
Transmission lines can, in effect 'time shift' solar generation so electricity generated from solar is used after the sun goes down.
Example could be connecting the West coast of Australia to the East cost grid, which is a 3h time difference, so strong solar levels from the West coast available on the east coast in the evening.
A similar thing could be done between Australian and NZ.
No. (Score:2)
The reasons are blatantly obvious.
Power Loss (Score:2)
Re:Power Loss (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't we told repeatedly that 50% of power generated is lost just transmitting it to its destination?
No, transmission loss is about 5% in the US. Most countries with modern grids don't get above 10%
Re: (Score:2)
Also with high temperature superconducting tape decreasing in cost superconducting power transmission might just become feasible.
Sad if it is (Score:2)
Every home should have solar panels. We need a distributed power grid, not a centralized one. Given today's technology (I am referring to advances in aesthetics, cost, AND energy efficiency), there is no excuse for every new single-family home to install a solar roof. Many apartment complexes too, lest they pay for offset.
Every state (except maybe Alaska) should enter into its building codes the California solar mandate that requires new construction homes to have a solar energy system. The code went into e
Re: (Score:2)
Oops meant to say there is no excuse for every new single-family home to NOT install a solar roof
Re: (Score:2)
Your meaning was clear. But I sure wish Slashdot allowed editing.
Re: Sad if it is (Score:2)
Great. Invent solar panels capable of surviving a direct hit by a category 1 hurricane with zero damage, and a category 3 hurricane with under $500 worth of damage, and people in Florida might take your proposal seriously.
Reality: even a little baby category 1 hurricane (like Miami has every 5-12 years) would completely DESTROY most present-day PVA systems. Half the panels would get torn off your roof, then hit, shatter & crack the glass on the half that were left on your neighbor's roof.
Re: (Score:2)
About these huge power grids... (Score:2)
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/57769/12-biggest-electrical-blackouts-history
Not looking forward to the day when one tripped circuit breaker ends civilization.
Buckminster Fuller had this idea in the 70's (Score:2)
He is hard to read, possibly batshit crazy, but he is right about a lot of what has transpired in my lifetime.
could be a beautiful future . . . (Score:2)
One of the best things to happen in modern times, in terms of guaranteeing world peace, is the interdependence of all modern countries. Show me where you can drop a bomb on a civilized nation and not hurt your own interests? For the US, we have factories and facilities from Coca Cola, Caterpiller, General Motors, and other American companies all over the world. The Mexicans and Italians and Germans, even Chinese have major companies operating in the US. It would be stupid for any of us to bomb any other.
So
Uhhh (Score:2)
No, not until society changes (Score:2)
I wrote a big essay about this, then realised that, at no point in the past, or present, has there been enough political stability between countries for this to work.
People are greedy, and politicians will always be "national first" (or they would join their country with the neighbour). If you disagree, why do countries have states, with different local rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Looking at what is going on in the world today I just don't ever see the level of cooperation and trust needed for this to work out.
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they are not.
Australia to Singapore proposal (Score:2)
Though not built yet there is planning going ahead for an Australia to Singapore power cable starting construction in
2023.
The idea would be for Australia to build a massive solar farm in Australia and a hvdc cable to Singapore.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Grid Resilience (Score:2)
In some ways and despite the significant challenges, we might be selectively concentrating on just part of the problem. We wou
Transportable hydrogen (Score:2)
Re: Transmission line loss? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the voltage, of course. 800kv line, ultra high voltage DC, that is over 2500 km long exist and more are planned. Need to get to almost 30 percent or more longer to get from NYC to say Santa Fe... but seems within engineering possibility
Re: (Score:2)
They use high voltage DC for these long distances. Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
Educate yourself [wikipedia.org] because this technology is utilized in Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The federal government already hands out billions to nuclear plants because they can’t turn a profit. I’d much rather have some fiberglass sitting in a landfill than spent fuel with a thousand year half life. I’d also like to see your calculations on fiberglass turbine blades never making back their energy.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government already hands out billions to nuclear plants because they can’t turn a profit.
Nuclear is the least subsidized energy sector now: https://news.climate.columbia.... [columbia.edu]
Re:Who is going to pay for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to rain on parades, but with all these large ventures, who is going to pay for it, who cleans it up, and will it actually generate more energy than the cost of building it takes? For example, the Texas wind farms are being dismantled, with the windmill blades tossed, because they never generated more electricity than they cost to make, be it the cost of resin for the fiberglass, the cost of transporting the blades, and so on.
Weird how Texas can't manage it when the rest of the world can, even the second-world countries.
What's going on in Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit mostly. Texas installed wind capacity looks to be growing more or less exponentially.
Re:Who is going to pay for this? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent post is just repeating some meaningless internet anecdote.
https://www.oilandgas360.com/e... [oilandgas360.com] https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov]
Re: Who is going to pay for this? (Score:2)
Parent post is just repeating some meaningless internet anecdote. You must be new here? Welcome.
Re: Who is going to pay for this? (Score:3, Funny)
What's going on in Texas?
Steers n' queers; you do the math.
Q: why do shepherds wear flowing robes?
A: because sheep can hear a zipper from a mile away.
Re:Who is going to pay for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"with the windmill blades tossed, because they never generated more electricity than they cost to make"
1) The energy payback period for wind turbines is 2-3 months. What wind turbines are you talking about that are torn down after 2-3 months?
2) The majority of turbine blades still aren't recycled, but there's also not that many of them to use as a consistent feedstock. The amount of recycling is growing, however - the two main uses being in concrete (loose fiber is often already added to concrete mixes to improve its properties) and for making fibre boards (for desks, walls, etc).
"As for asking rival countries to countries that have missiles and artillery batteries aimed at them, good luck at that"
Why do you assume that any other country is a "rival country"?
I live in a country that's long been talked about as a potential long-distance power exporter (Iceland). Iceland and the rest of Europe are not "rivals"; we just don't have connected grids.
Here's the actual issues you'll face.
1) It's one thing to ask people to accept having rivers dammed, geothermal areas tapped, wind farms spread across their lands and seas, or solar farms spring up, when it's generating the power that they themselves consume. It's a much harder ask when it's power going to other people in distant countries. The acceptance rate is much lower.
2) Locals - rightfully - get worried about an increase in their local power rates when they're exporting to countries where electricity costs are much higher and will pay much higher prices for the power.
3) #1 and #2 can be offset by the government taxing exported power and using that as a revenue source for offsetting other costs for citizens and improving their quality of life. The problem is, in most countries, people really don't trust that the benefits will actually reach them. They expect that some wealthy megabusinesses connected with government officials that build the connections and the power plants will be the ones that get the lion's share of the profits, and that what goes to helping them, if anything, will be a trickle.
When it comes to power exporting schemes, it's easy to get bogged down focusing on the technical aspects, the "Can we do this?", and forget about the fact that if you're dealing with a democracy, you need to win over the people of the exporting country first.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It's one thing to ask people to accept having rivers dammed, geothermal areas tapped, wind farms spread across their lands and seas, or solar farms spring up, when it's generating the power that they themselves consume. It's a much harder ask when it's power going to other people in distant countries. The acceptance rate is much lower.
Seems like that would depend on how profitable it is and how the profits are distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
LPG users in Australia can relate to #2. After the export gas terminals were opened, local gas prices increased . Infact, the cost of LPG in Australia as a local user is more than the cost of LPG in say, Japan, where it is exported to, because there is insufficient reserved for the local market
Who is doing the reserving? This seems like the effect of some regulation; markets don't produce this sort of distortion, except sometimes in the very short term.
Re: (Score:2)
From the 30s [geni.org]
The Transoceanic Transmission Line, Hurrah!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gobi more than double the US installation ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think yo critically underestimate the logistics of operating nuclear power; the fuel cycle, from mining to refining to disposal (or even reprocessing) is something of an ecological nightmare in its own right. Nuclear plants also require shitloads of water for cooling, which is not readily in a desert so you're gonna have to build them somewhat closer to where people live.
Also there's a small problem of power output being limited by the temperature of the available water [reuters.com], which can be an issue thanks to climate change, especially central latitudes.
Meanwhile, at this scale it makes far more sense to use solar thermal, rather than solar photovoltaic, so most of your criticisms are instantly moot. Bonus: Solar thermal has energy storage baked in (pun intended) so there's no need for additional infrastructure for that.
And finally, there are some studies and simulations that suggest that covering portions of deserts may actually change local climate and bring rains and plant growth back to the region [bbc.com]. We can potentially, but literally, un-desert-ify the desert. Good luck getting a nuclear plant to do that.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants also require shitloads of water for cooling, which is not readily in a desert so you're gonna have to build them somewhat closer to where people live.
Nuclear plants can use ocean water for cooling but it is not required. An alternative is to use cooling towers and then recirculate the coolant - just like an ICE vehicle. Those iconic cooling towers people associate with nuclear power have nothing to do with nuclear energy, they just allow the coolant to cool. When a nuclear plant is built next to the ocean they tend to skip the cooling towers but when water is scarce, cooling towers can get the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nuclear plants can use ocean water for cooling but it is not required.
Oceans are conspicuously absent in the desert. Hence, building them closer to people.
> An alternative is to use cooling towers and then recirculate the coolant - just like an ICE vehicle.
Cooling towers operate via evaporation, which means water losses, which means you need a water supply to replace what you lose. What do you think those billowing white plumes tat come out of them are made of?
Worse yet is cooling towers need relat
Re: (Score:2)
Also there's a small problem of power output being limited by the temperature of the available water [reuters.com], which can be an issue thanks to climate change, especially central latitudes.
Nuclear power plants can be designed to be independent from the cooling water temperature. For example, Palo Verde Generating Station in Arizona, which is in the middle of a freaking desert, evaporates wastewater to provide cooling.
Nordic power plants were simply not designed for this.
Re: (Score:2)
> The US Department of Energy did studies on the level of mining needed for different energy sources.
Great, try linking to the actual source next time instead of a blog that doesn't link to it either. C'mon, you can do it...
> One of the largest nuclear power plants was built in a desert.
"The power plant evaporates the water from the treated sewage from several nearby cities and towns to provide the cooling of the steam that it produces"
Hey hey, you know what doesn't exist in the Gobi desert..?
> We
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Texas grid fiasco is deliberate. There are a lot of people in Texas who rather not have power, than to have Federal regulation, because they feel that it causes Texas to "flirt with socialism". Of course, if you ask these people to define "socialism", you will get the deer in headlights stare, or a statement that anything like the grid, roads, fire department, waster, or wastewater is "socialism" and needs to be privatized or gotten rid of.
Re: (Score:3)
Just about every state in the US - as well as most Canadian provinces - is already on wide-scale grids [wikipedia.org]. Texas is an outlier because it's Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the region to the west will not receive much benefit. The fact that New York has plenty of sunshine at 6am west coast time doesn't help the west coast because power is not really needed on the west coast at 6am. But the fact that California has lots of sunshine at 6, 7, and 8pm on the east coast could be very good for the east coast, because they DO have a lot of demand at that time. So the power can flow both ways. But it will probably flow eastward more often than not.