9 ms·

I do not feel as optimistic about any uptick in cables as I do about solar and wind. Solar and wind can grow through a multitude of small, plug-and-play project

I do not feel as optimistic about any uptick in cables as I do about solar and wind. Solar and wind can grow through a multitude of small, plug-and-play projects. Cable projects like HDVC are still giant, long-term punts.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago
A lot of the wind projects could be classified as "giant, long-term punts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm
- shawabawa3 1y ago
  What exactly does that mean? The project you linked to was completed pretty quickly and is supplying 2.5GW to the UK grid
idiotsecant 1y ago
This is literally the problem. Transmission is desperately needed, much more than generation right now. The issue is that it's hard to explain to people why this is, and even when they understand they react like you do. RENEWABLES NEED TRANSMISSION!!! We need to be building unprecedented Manhattan project levels of transmission, yesterday! But instead we will put some solar panels on a car park and feel like we did our part. Solar is the easy part. Storage and/or transmission is the hard part.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. There's a tradeoff, and batteries are rapidly improving.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    The only real downside to batteries is the cost. The upsides are vast. Beyond adding feasibility to solar and wind, batteries stabilize the grid. The ability to instantly absorb and output power in response to demand or a lack of demand is incredibly valuable.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      I was somewhat gobsmacked when I learned there are electric stoves with integrated batteries (the batteries serving to reduce the maximum current draw for homes wired for limited current.)
      - cogman10 1y ago
        And, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Stoves spend 90% of their time drawing 0 power. A fridge would also do well to have a backup battery.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. But only the Chinese have either the capability to, or interest in, building a one-square-meter-cross-section aluminium belt around the planet, and that means a geopolitical faff.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      > While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. Where "sufficiently cheap" here means "affordable over intercontinental distances". I believe storage costs are falling faster than transmission costs.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        The "intercontinental distances" part is simpler, and potentially* cheaper at current aluminium prices, than the domestic grid upgrades and repairs much of the west needs anyway. * The scale is such that it's more of an opportunity cost than a dollar cost, what else can be done with 5% of Chinese aluminium per year for the next 20-or-so years. But also, much research needed before a true price tag can be attached, rather than just a bill of materials
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    >With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. This logic eats its own tail. Yes, if battery storage was cheap a lot of things would be monumentally better. It isn't. We need today solutions, not hypothetical ones.
    - defrost 1y ago
      Progress marches on: Chemical Process Produces Critical Battery Metals With No Waste https://spectrum.ieee.org/nmc-battery-aspiring-materials https://spectrum.ieee.org/nmc-battery-aspiring-materials Energy storage technology is on a roll, and grid storage isn't limited by weight energy density in the same manner as vehicle batteries are.
      - idiotsecant 1y ago
        There have been articles like this for decades. Yes, batteries will get incrementally cheaper and incrementally better. They will get better slower than climate change gets worse.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      The batteries are already cheap enough, per kWh deferred over their lifetimes, to make a huge difference. Like, "97% of the problem can be solved without requiring a single new invention" kind of difference. The current limiting factor is the number of factories making batteries, not the cost per deferred kWh of the batteries they do make.
- gosub100 1y ago
  Is this whole "new set of cables" factored into the CO2 emissions equation? We're undoubtedly going to use massive amounts of energy to mine the metal, melt it into wire, transport it to the site, build the towers, etc. Is that energy "green" ?
  - pjc50 1y ago
    > Is that energy "green" ? Not very, but neither is continuing to use fossil fuels on a huge scale.
    - gosub100 1y ago
      So why do it at all if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling. It's just "do what we say or the climate will die". I reject that imperative.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. When all the power plants are green, all of the energy you use to build green power plants is necessarily green. How green a new power plant is, during the process of construction, is a statement of how much progress you've already made before this step, not how much you make in the act of making this step.
        gosub100 1y ago
        its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
        ben_w 1y ago
        They're also not escaping any such accounting, but that wasn't my point. PV pays its own energy cost in a few months these days. But even then, the very first PV had to be made with mostly fossil fuels and some hydroelectric, now the new ones in China are made with 35% renewables. Grids have the same question: how green it is to modify today is the current status of the power supply (etc.), not the status it will be when it's been modified.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  And I'd still much rather pay a utility every month for electricity (and have them be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure) than install and maintain my own solar plant on my roof, for the same reasons that I'd rather pay utilities to provide me with water and sewer service than have my own well and septic system.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago

A lot of the wind projects could be classified as "giant, long-term punts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm

shawabawa3 1y ago
What exactly does that mean? The project you linked to was completed pretty quickly and is supplying 2.5GW to the UK grid

idiotsecant 1y ago

This is literally the problem. Transmission is desperately needed, much more than generation right now. The issue is that it's hard to explain to people why this is, and even when they understand they react like you do. RENEWABLES NEED TRANSMISSION!!! We need to be building unprecedented Manhattan project levels of transmission, yesterday! But instead we will put some solar panels on a car park and feel like we did our part. Solar is the easy part. Storage and/or transmission is the hard part.

pfdietz 1y ago
With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. There's a tradeoff, and batteries are rapidly improving.
- cogman10 1y ago
  The only real downside to batteries is the cost. The upsides are vast. Beyond adding feasibility to solar and wind, batteries stabilize the grid. The ability to instantly absorb and output power in response to demand or a lack of demand is incredibly valuable.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    I was somewhat gobsmacked when I learned there are electric stoves with integrated batteries (the batteries serving to reduce the maximum current draw for homes wired for limited current.)
    - cogman10 1y ago
      And, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Stoves spend 90% of their time drawing 0 power. A fridge would also do well to have a backup battery.
- ben_w 1y ago
  While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. But only the Chinese have either the capability to, or interest in, building a one-square-meter-cross-section aluminium belt around the planet, and that means a geopolitical faff.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    > While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. Where "sufficiently cheap" here means "affordable over intercontinental distances". I believe storage costs are falling faster than transmission costs.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      The "intercontinental distances" part is simpler, and potentially* cheaper at current aluminium prices, than the domestic grid upgrades and repairs much of the west needs anyway. * The scale is such that it's more of an opportunity cost than a dollar cost, what else can be done with 5% of Chinese aluminium per year for the next 20-or-so years. But also, much research needed before a true price tag can be attached, rather than just a bill of materials
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  >With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. This logic eats its own tail. Yes, if battery storage was cheap a lot of things would be monumentally better. It isn't. We need today solutions, not hypothetical ones.
  - defrost 1y ago
    Progress marches on: Chemical Process Produces Critical Battery Metals With No Waste https://spectrum.ieee.org/nmc-battery-aspiring-materials https://spectrum.ieee.org/nmc-battery-aspiring-materials Energy storage technology is on a roll, and grid storage isn't limited by weight energy density in the same manner as vehicle batteries are.
    - idiotsecant 1y ago
      There have been articles like this for decades. Yes, batteries will get incrementally cheaper and incrementally better. They will get better slower than climate change gets worse.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    The batteries are already cheap enough, per kWh deferred over their lifetimes, to make a huge difference. Like, "97% of the problem can be solved without requiring a single new invention" kind of difference. The current limiting factor is the number of factories making batteries, not the cost per deferred kWh of the batteries they do make.
gosub100 1y ago
Is this whole "new set of cables" factored into the CO2 emissions equation? We're undoubtedly going to use massive amounts of energy to mine the metal, melt it into wire, transport it to the site, build the towers, etc. Is that energy "green" ?
- pjc50 1y ago
  > Is that energy "green" ? Not very, but neither is continuing to use fossil fuels on a huge scale.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    So why do it at all if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling. It's just "do what we say or the climate will die". I reject that imperative.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. When all the power plants are green, all of the energy you use to build green power plants is necessarily green. How green a new power plant is, during the process of construction, is a statement of how much progress you've already made before this step, not how much you make in the act of making this step.
      - gosub100 1y ago
        its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
        ben_w 1y ago
        They're also not escaping any such accounting, but that wasn't my point. PV pays its own energy cost in a few months these days. But even then, the very first PV had to be made with mostly fossil fuels and some hydroelectric, now the new ones in China are made with 35% renewables. Grids have the same question: how green it is to modify today is the current status of the power supply (etc.), not the status it will be when it's been modified.
SoftTalker 1y ago
And I'd still much rather pay a utility every month for electricity (and have them be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure) than install and maintain my own solar plant on my roof, for the same reasons that I'd rather pay utilities to provide me with water and sewer service than have my own well and septic system.