OT Additional HVDC link.

So what will the losses be on such a very long cable? I hate to think. Brian

Well I guess that if you have a surplus of wind power that you can?t sell, even with losses it becomes economic to export it.

Tim

Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) snipped-for-privacy@bluey> So what will the losses be on such a very long cable?

after the major UK grid problems last autumn, I wouldn't rely on Siemens. Oh and they are also mainly responible for the late arrival of Crossrail

Hmmm. How much of the connector counts as a UK import? On the basis that one end might as well not exist without the other, 50:50 might make sense. But financial and tax issues often defy simple (and simplistic) logic.

The price of electricity in Denmark is very high. Whether this is still the case, I'm not sure, but a few years ago when Denmark had surplus wind power it sold it to Sweden at a knock-down price - a buyer's market. When Denmark is short of power it buys it from Sweden at a much higher price.

HVDC transmission losses are quoted as less than 3% per 1,000 km

The Britain Demark link is approx 750km

It will be interesting to see what the wind farms do from mid afternoon through to next Tuesday while the current line of storms pushes though. Full moon again. Brian

This is where you need good efficient and large storage. This has always been a problem with electricity. Its transient in nature. Brian

They are whatever you are prepared to pay for.

Fatter conductor - less loss. More power. More loss.

When the storm hits us, we will be exporting power. As it moves away to Denmark/Germany, we will be importing power from Denmark/Germany. That's what East West connections are about.

What we need is reliable, weather-independent electricity generation. On Thursday evening Wind was producing 5 percent of the demand, and Solar was producing zero. Renewables as a group was producing only 12 percent of demand, The French Interconnector was practically melting as it imported the max of 2GW.This situation also happened a couple of weeks ago.

With Nuclear producing the baseload of 20GW, CCGT could all but handle the rest alone, no need for expensive subsidy farms or costly battery farms.

Hmm...we shall see!

True. Let's invest more in nuclear. Made in China. That will never be expensive or need any subsidies. And all such things always come in on budget and on time.

Like the processed raw materials that the 'green energy' industries rely on and the battery subsidy-farms will need, you mean?

Like you - and pretty well everyone else - costing such things seems to depend on where you start from. Ably demonstrated by the nuclear lobby.

I favour a variety of power generating types. Putting all your eggs in one basket was never truer.

Those who are so against renewable sources rather obviously have an agenda.

Costing such things does seem to depend on where the subsidies start from. Ably demonstrated by the Renewables lobby.

I favour putting my eggs in the 'reliable' basket.

Nuclear and CCGT will do that just fine, no need for anything else.

Those who are so for renewable sources rather obviously have an agenda.

In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus

Look up Rolls Royce nuclear power TNP published a bit on modular nuclear the other week seems promising:)

Yes look it up. When you look into it, it's a load of bollix and will never happen.

Sunday Morning: I assume that wind is now providing 100% of our electricity needs and will continue to do so for the rest of the day? Or is it the wrong type of wind?