duckduckohno t1_ixdcgej wrote
2-7% improvement over line losses of HVAC.
The biggest advantage isnt reusing the same grid, it's building a NEW one and burying the transmission lines. Not only will the HVDC equipment be expensive, but so will the labor and new lines (these new lines need to be 600+ km to see a ROI and can't use the exact same existing infrastructure).
It'll be interesting to see if the cost of this project will exceed the cost of building more renewables and accepting the line losses.
danielv123 t1_ixdxc06 wrote
The problem is that the current grid doesn't have the capacity to move renewable energy far enough. This can be compensated for with storage, but that is very expensive.
Splenda t1_ixe8qae wrote
No, HVDC offers closer to 50% reduction in line loss versus AC.
UHVDC loses even less, and is now the standard for long-haul lines in China, the world leader in this. And few of these lines are buried.
frontiermanprotozoa t1_ixeif40 wrote
Yes, 6% and 3%. 3% benefit. when you make something thats 94% percent efficient 50% more efficient it doesnt become 141% efficent
Splenda t1_ixeqv5x wrote
>2-7% improvement over line losses of HVAC.
This statement is grammatically false. Yes, with imagination one can twist it into a correct interpretation, but I thought it so confusing that it deserved explanation.
WaitformeBumblebee t1_ixdycli wrote
Additional bonus over HVAC: underground HVDC is better shielded from EMP/sun flair.
TacTurtle t1_ixe6x4r wrote
Stepping up and down DC voltage is vastly more expensive than AC, which can use simple current transformers.
Only way HVDC makes real economic sense would be for a few key trunk lines, and even then it is pretty dubious vs standard AC since you would still need a substantial inverter at the end to make wall-outlet AC for most demand.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments