[AR] Re: extreme grid interconnection
- From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:45:26 -0400
Norman:
I continue to emphasize that the point is that significant economic incentive
exists to solve the transmission loss problem. Superconductivity is an ideal
answer, but not necessary: doing away with transmission--via local
generation--is also viable as are multiple other answers, including microwave
beaming, as Henry points out.
My point is only that if someone solves the transmission loss problem the
distance problem will be addressed at the same time. No miracles required; just
steady development of incremental solutions.
We don't disagree about the geopolitics.
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you're going to bring into the argument technologies which don't
> exist and likely never will, like room temperature superconductors,
> the other side is likely to start invoking space elevators made of
> graphene or buckytubes or whatever the current high-strength dream
> material is.
>
> But actually, I don't think you need to. Wikipedia quotes
> transmission losses of 3.5% per 1000 kilometers for high-voltage DC
> power lines, which yields about 50% loss for going halfway around the
> world. That's not an unworkable number; and it's probably mostly
> resistance loss, which can be improved by using thicker conductors.
>
> Prior to World War 1, there was a large school of thought that said
> that the world economy had become so interdependent that the major
> powers would never dare to go to war against each other. That school
> of thought was so thoroughly destroyed that it has only recently
> started to be revived. (It turns out that when going to war, "the
> enemy depends on us" is viewed as an advantage which counterbalances
> the disadvantage that "we depend on the enemy".) And that was with
> major powers making the decisions; an electrical cable circling the
> globe would have to cross some dodgy areas, giving control to actors
> with little to lose. A considerable amount of interdependence among
> nations is somewhat inherent to the modern technological world, but
> this would be getting ridiculous.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:24:32AM -0400, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
>> Nobody is going to use existing superconductors for more than a few
>> kilometer (under the East River to Manhattan, for example, where the
>> savings in power loss justify the expense). Whether a room
>> temperature superconductor exists is obviously an open
>> question. Again, the point is that the large cost of power losses in
>> the existing grid (I estimate that at least 20% of all power
>> generated in North America is loss to heating up transmission lines.)
>> means there is a large economic incentive to finding a better
>> solution.
>>
>> Geopolitics plays in any large power system, including SPS. The
>> counter view is that large international grids act as political
>> stabilizing systems, FWIW.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Norman Yarvin <yarvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:54:22AM -0400, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, the point is that such solutions are lower cost and
>>>> incremental to existing economic needs: as Keith has observed, power
>>>> loss in existing cable is expensive; which is why transmission
>>>> companies are experimenting with superconducting cable to replace
>>>> existing cable.
>>>
>>> When one considers the practicality of running power cables cooled by
>>> liquid nitrogen under thousands of miles of ocean, solar power
>>> satellites start to seem like a reasonable project.
>>>
>>> The vulnerability of a worldwide power grid to hostile acts would also
>>> be most extreme. The Ukraine situation offers but a faint hint of the
>>> opportunities for extortion that would arise from being in a position
>>> to cut the world's electrical throat.
>
Other related posts: