Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Australia

Singapore Approves 2,600-Mile Undersea Cable to Import Solar Energy from Australia (newatlas.com) 92

"The world's largest renewable energy and transmission project has received key approval from government officials," reports New Atlas.

Solar power from Australia will be carried 2,672 miles (4,300 kilometers) to Singapore over undersea cables in what's being called "the Australia-Asia Power Link project." Reuters reports that SunCable "aims to produce 6 gigawatts of electricity at a vast solar farm in Northern Australia and ship about a third of that to Singapore via undersea cable."

More from New Atlas: [The project] will start by constructing a mammoth solar farm in Australia's Northern Territory to transmit around-the-clock clean power to [the Australian city] Darwin, and also export "reliable, cost-competitive renewable energy" to Singapore... with a clean energy generation capacity of up to 10 gigawatts, plus utility scale onsite storage. [The recently-obtained environmental approval] also green lights an 800-km (~500-mile) overhead transmission line between the solar precinct and Murrumujuk near Darwin...

If all of the dominoes line up perfectly, supply of the first clean electricity is estimated to start in the early 2030s. An overview graphic on the project page shows that the eventual end game for the Powell Creek development appears to be the generation of up to 20 GW of peak solar power and have some 36-42 GWh of battery storage on site.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the news.

Singapore Approves 2,600-Mile Undersea Cable to Import Solar Energy from Australia

Comments Filter:
  • Losses (Score:2, Informative)

    Wow, imagine the losses on those transmission lines!
    • Depending on how it's transmitted it isn't as bad as you might suspect. I would imagine they'll be exceptionally high voltage to keep the current low.

      More concerning is that the loss is 100% when the cable gets cut either on accident or intentionally.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        More concerning is that the loss is 100% when the cable gets cut either on accident or intentionally.

        That is only a concern in relatively flat water. And the ship that does it gets 2GW into their anchor chain. I imagine this will not happen again after the first time. As to intentionally, you can just as easily cut an overland line using a drone. In fact, that is a _lot_ easier.

      • by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
        You're right, they COULD make it out of 0000 gauge solid silver. I don't think they will but they could.
    • Re:Losses (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoWayNoShapeNoForm ( 7060585 ) on Saturday October 26, 2024 @05:16PM (#64896361)

      Wow, imagine the losses on those transmission lines!

      Will likely be a HVDC transmission system given those distances.

      Yes, there will be some power loss along the line and in the AC-DC then DC-AC conversion process, but the overall concept is highly effective ... just ask Southern California ;)))))

      • by 0xG ( 712423 )

        Wow, imagine the losses on those transmission lines!

        Will likely be a HVDC transmission system given those distances.

        Yes, there will be some power loss along the line and in the AC-DC then DC-AC conversion process

        Solar cells produce DC. So, it's either:

        DC-AC...AC-DC...DC-AC
        (DC cell to AC overland transmission, AC to DC undersea, DC to AC household)

        or just DC-AC
        (DC cells to overland to undersea to AC household)

        But I suspect that the conversion components can be more efficient than you think.

    • At certain energy levels it's cheaper to supercool the line than to accept the losses.

      That might be less worthwhile if you already have an ocean to help.

    • Re:Losses (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday October 26, 2024 @05:26PM (#64896385) Homepage Journal

      It's about 3% per 1000km on HVDC lines. Fortunately solar power is the cheapest around.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. About the same number I found (3.5%/1000km: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]). Not an issue.

        What is nice is that apparently solar power is now cheap enough that very long transmission line building makes sense.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Long distance transmission has made sense for a long time, because energy prices differences between regions tend to be much more than the losses.

          It's just that only this century did we start to get really good and reliable HVDC stuff to make it happen. Fits well with renewables coming to the fore.

    • ~1% per 1000km ... so 3%. Wow just imagine.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      At 4300km? About 15% using HVDC. Which you could have found out with some minimal research.

    • Re:Losses (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday October 26, 2024 @05:46PM (#64896447)

      Most losses on transmission lines are due to reactance between phases (raising voltage doesn't help much as it makes the electric field stronger), and the resistive losses of needing a cable thin enough to be dangling from the sky. This project is an HVDC undersea cable which doesn't have either of those issues. There are very few losses over the length of a transmission line for HVDC, just some losses in conversion at either end.

      Australia is known to transmit power many thousands of km already over traditional transmission lines. They have interconnectors between all states which amusingly lead to a frequency disruption in Northern Queensland getting corrected by the Hornsdale Power Reserve (Tesla battery) in South Australia 3000km away faster than the local gas frequency correction plant could spin up.

      This HVDC link will have less losses than a lot of electrons zipping around Australia right now.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        Not between all states, just parts of the eastern half :)
        So that grid is a thousand miles from Darwin where the proposed undersea cable would land. (if it ever gets financed)

        • Indeed the NT is a bit out in the cold. But I never implied that this system will be connected to that grid, just pointing out that this will be far more efficient than some things Australia already has.

          • by quenda ( 644621 )

            Your sin was to ignore us in the West :-) Grid-wise, i guess we are the Texas of Australia.

    • Less than the losses a gasoline truck has when he brings gasoline to your next gasoline station.

      FACEPALM.

      (P.S. where does this loss myth come from? You learn nothing in school in your country? The loss on this line will perhaps be 5%, likely less.)

  • ... on a construction site who runs his extension cord through doorways and windows you're trying to hang. Or scaffolding you're trying to remove.

  • What are those chopped liver?

    • Comparatively unstable. Indonesia especially would be tempted to use such a relationship to hold Singapore hostage. Its own situation is tenuous enough that it's relocating its entire seat of government from its ancient capital to Borneo. Malaysia's decent, all things considered, but it's not Australia.
  • We do not have room temperature super conductors. The energy loss will be massive
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Loss is about 3% per 1000km for HVDC lines like this. The higher the voltage, the lower the loss, and the tech is improving in that area all the time.

    • No, most energy losses in transmission lines are the result of reactance between phases. HVDC lines have only conversion and resistive losses, and they are very small.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      No. Your knowledge is massively outdated. About 3.5% per 1000km these days with HVDC, so about 15% for the full range. Incidentally, even HVAC would only have about 30% loss for this distance, but the cables are a lot more expensive. HVDC is just a single wire, and the 2nd direction is via ground.

      • I have never heard of a power-distribution system that relies on actual ground to complete the circuit. Can anyone share examples?

        • Railways.

          • Using the rails as a conductor? That's not actual ground.

            • The rails are on the ground.
              Or do you think they are hovering somewhere in mid air?

              • The rails are a conductor that happens to be on the ground, or more correctly, on top of ties, which are typically made of a dielectric non-conducting material called "wood."

                As I said in my original reply to gweihir, I would like to hear of an example of a power-distribution system that uses the actual, physical ground as a second conductor. Not some conductor laid on the ground.

                • And I just did, from an AC and from _merlin. See below.

                • I believe the Pacific DC Intertie [wikipedia.org] uses earth return. The article has detail about the grounding arrays:

                  The grounding system at Celilo consists of 1,067 cast iron anodes buried in a two-foot (60 cm) trench of petroleum coke, which behaves as an electrode, arranged in a ring of 2.0 miles (3,255 m) circumference at Rice Flats (near Rice, Oregon), which is 6.6 miles (10.6 km) SSE of Celilo. It is connected to the converter station by two aerial 644 mm2 (0.998 in2) ACSR (aluminum conductor, steel reinforced) co

                • Electric high speed rails are not on wood beams but on concrete.
                  If you ever would look at the mechanism that picks up the power, you would clearly see: there can not be any other way than using the rails as ground.

            • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday October 27, 2024 @03:14AM (#64897167)

              That's not entirely true. If the rail was exclusively used as the conductor then the distance from the train to the substation would cause the rail to increase in voltage relative to the earth due to the resistance of the rail which could potentially lead to someone getting electrocuted by touching the rail when the train has passed. Additionally this would also cause stray leakage current to pass into structures near and even underneath the railway potentially damaging them (e.g. via galvanic corrosion).

              While power is run through the rail itself, those rails are linked to earth stakes at regular intervals. Current doesn't flow the length of the rail back to the transformer but rather only a very short distance through it and then out to earth. But even then it's not that easy. The connection to earth (of which there are many) also occurs through resistors to try and limit current to earth at any given point (reducing step potential in the ground too).

              That all being said, many of these systems also don't feed to earth, but rather at regular intervals connect the rail back to a neutral conductor back to the substation.

              There are many many variants of traction electrical systems, but it is correct to say that some of them are incredibly similar to single wire earth return systems.

              • Thanks for this. Still not a physical-ground return, but I'll admit it's close.

                • Sort of yes and no. Ultimately most of the current does end up returning through ground because the resistance of the ground (which can't be thought of as a single number but rather as a weird gradient) is lower than many km of tracks (as big as tracks are, steel is a rubbish conductor).

                  In a way you can think of the track in some single phase traction electrical systems like a giant earth grid. Power comes overhead, and then goes into the track. A lot of the current goes straight to the earth stake, some cu

        • by _merlin ( 160982 )

          Any number of SWER [wikipedia.org] systems. Also Basslink [wikipedia.org] between mainland Australia and Tasmania, which is particularly relevant as it's an undersea DC link like this proposed link to Singapore.

        • Undersea HVDC cables have a massive grounding array at each end.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          For HVDC that is one of the options.

        • The original distribution wiring in the U.S. Buy an old enough house that hasn't been remodeled in a long time and you might find some "umbrella wiring". The last time I saw this was 1995, but I would guess there are still a few examples out there. In a house with this wiring you have 1 wire from the source to the light bulb to the switch to the (literal) ground.
      • You can't run HVAC under water. The cable would turn into a giant capacitor, causing reactive power losses to be excessive.

      • Incidentally, even HVAC would only have about 30% loss for this distance,

        Not under the sea it wouldn't!

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      I was arguing with someone a while ago that qualitative knowlege is really only useful as a starting point for quantification. You've provided an excellent example.

  • some 36-42 GWh of battery storage on site.

    This is an interesting engineering question: what are the pros and cons of having battery storage on generation site versus on consumer site. Obviously the later means more smaller batteries than the former.

    • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Saturday October 26, 2024 @05:50PM (#64896463) Homepage

      some 36-42 GWh of battery storage on site.

      This is an interesting engineering question: what are the pros and cons of having battery storage on generation site versus on consumer site. Obviously the later means more smaller batteries than the former.

      Depends on where the variability is. Since the required cable cross-section is proportional to how much current is flowing through it, you want the power through the cable to be constant for lowest cable cost. So, the solar energy produced during the day should be sent during both day and night-- meaning, storage at the generation site. But, the usage will vary with time, meaning, storage at the utilization site. To minimize the cable cost, you'd want storage on both sides. But, to minimize battery cost, you probably want it on one side or the other. So it depends on the relative cost of cable versus batteries.

    • Generically, it seems like siting it near the consumer would make it more reliable, and you wouldn't need to oversize the battery for long-distance transmission loss.

      But in this case, perhaps the cost of real estate is so, SO much lower in AUS than Singapore that it overrides other factors.

      • If the storage is on consumer site, you would need to transfer twice as much energy during daytime.
        And obviously nothing at all during night.

        Having the storage at the source, also means you can use it for other needs.

    • by ac22 ( 7754550 )

      Of the 6GW being generated, 4GW will be used by Australian industrial customers in Darwin (800km away), with the remaining 2GW supplying Singapore (4,300km).

      The text boxes on the map at the top of the page indicate that the 42GWh battery will be based at the solar farm, with additional local batteries at the Darwin and Singapore converter sites:

      https://newatlas.com/energy/su... [newatlas.com]

  • Just curious about the dimensions of something like this. It's probably much smaller than I would think.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      Conductor sizes 1200 mm2 are most common, but sizes 2400 mm2 have been made occasionally.

    • I say we should test out some autonomous robotic manufacturing tech and turn all the non-urban parts of Australia into a giant solar panel.

      Is this a good idea? No, for many, many reasons. But it would still be awesome.

  • Look, I get that Australia may have space for a solar farm and Singapore might not, but it seems to me that one of the most attractive aspects of solar power is that it does not need to rely on a distribution grid. I have solar power on my house, and I feed the grid, not the other way around.

    TFA appears to be oddly silent on this matter.

    • by ceview ( 2857765 )
      Surprisingly Singapore isn't very sunny, it's almost always diffused sunlight most of the time due to clouds and frequent overcast conditions.
    • by ac22 ( 7754550 )

      Singapore has a tropical climate with abundant rainfall. The planned panels will be sited in the Australian desert, where there is much less chance of rainclouds messing up their output. They are targetting industrial users as customers.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday October 27, 2024 @03:25AM (#64897173)

      There's a lot to unpack in your post. Firstly do you know how big Singapore is? China just connected a solar farm to the grid that is larger than the entire country. Yes literally, Xinjiang solar farm is 800 km^2 in surface area, while all of Singapore is 734 km^2.

      Secondly the house idea is great but Singapore doesn't have houses. Literally 4.8% of the population has their own roof over their head. The rest live in apartments. It's an incredibly population dense place where nearly the entire population has no option to install solar.

      Thirdly Singapore is not that sunny. It has a tropical climate with lots of rain and averages only 5.5 hours of sunlight a day, compared to Darwin (near where they want to build this plant) with 8.5 hours. That is a huge difference in capacity factor for a solar farm.

    • Surprisingly, Singapore is not full of single-family homes, and as an island, space is at a premium.

      It's hard to believe that there's no where else Singapore could source electricity from than 2,600 miles away. I mean, stick a pin in the Capitol of Singapore on a globe, then attach a scale 2,600 mile string to it and see where the sting reaches as you spin it around the globe...

      This is the same distance as between California and Hawaii (2,450 miles), why did it never occur to Hawaiians to just 'run an exten

  • over the cable, and all that money goes up on a little puff of boiled-off seawater?

    • There will be a big divot out of the anchor too. The water will flash to steam and that won't conduct very well so the anchor and chain will get it next.

      The breaker to stop a mega volt DC circuit must be impressive. There's no zero crossing to quench the arc.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They armour the cables to make them resilient to that sort of thing, and try to locate them away from shipping lanes. Stick a few buoys where it's coming ashore.

      As for deliberate attacks, as well as having surveillance equipment along the cable, yes this is a developing area of national security. It affects things like internet cables too.

    • by 0xG ( 712423 )

      over the cable, and all that money goes up on a little puff of boiled-off seawater?

      Nope, due to the electrolysis it would be a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen.
      Can you say 'boom'?

  • UK already has a HVDC line to main land Europe and is very success.. The distance is much smaller but after tis line came into operation, energy price across UK and Europe stabilised further and the peaks seen in the energy spot market reduced substantially. Interconnected energy grids are good from a market and economic point of view..
  • by kenh ( 9056 )

    They want to run a 2,600 mile/4,000 KM cable to direct 2 GW of solar electricity to Singapore?

    Well, as the source is solar, that means it will only be offering Singapore those 2 GWs of power during daylight hours...

    As I understand it, a 1 GW nuclear power plant requires less than 2 square miles of land [nei.org] - is Singapore so over-crowded they can't find a suitable patch of land to build a nuclear power plant? (I contend a 1 GW power plant that operates 24/7 is about the same as a 2 GW feedline that only operates

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.

Working...