[AR] Re: extreme grid interconnection
- From: David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:29:45 -0700
Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
> Microwave beaming, or laser.
hmmm.. is either of those going to have the genuinely
high (e.g. 80-90% end to end) efficiency needed to
compete on a direct power in/out basis with conventional
transmission?
I'm not sure that loss, as such, is the "long pole in the
tent" - it may determine the ultimate limit for the useful
length of a given DC line (with a given resistance, at a
given current and voltage); for the AC grid, the dominant
factor which limits long-distance power transfer tends to
be the reactive impedance of lines and equipment (transformers,
generators, etc.) - this is typically several times larger
than the actual resistance this is why, even if one could
build a sufficiently large transatlantic line, the power
couldn't simply be delivered into a single point on the east
coast - we would also need a "shadow grid" of transcontinental
HVDC lines, on a scale comparable to the present bulk AC transmission
system, to deliver the incoming power at useful locations around the
continent, while routing it around (rather than through) the entire
intervening AC network.
This is what the Pacific DC Intertie does, for example,
"wormholing" hydroelectric power generated in Oregon to
the AC system at the southern converter station at Sylmar,
near Los Angeles - without loading the available AC transmission
paths through California. A transatlantic line would need similar
facilities on a continental scale, to deliver power effectively
to a number of such interface points throughout the three
independently-synchronized AC interconnections in the US (i.e.,
the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and
ERCOT: the "Electric Reliability Council of Texas" - that's right,
Texas has its own separate AC grid, with relatively limited DC
interties to Eastern and Western Interconnections.)
-dave w
> On 3/17/2015 9:45 AM, Bill Claybaugh wrote:
>> Norman:
>>
>> I continue to emphasize that the point is that significant economic
<> incentive exists to solve the transmission loss problem.
Other related posts: