Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think any project is going to need some form of capacitor as a grid would just become unstable if you dump a huge amount of peak solar onto it without the consumption. So either way you need batteries, and all the problems they bring. Just about "how many".
Sure, but that how many is a critical factor in the overall cost of energy delivered
Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
241–250 of 299 posts
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#242I'm Aussie and I can't believe this Sun Cable project is being taken seriously by our government. The longest submarine power cable in the world - the Viking Link - is a mere 756 km long and cost US$2.2bn to build. Sun Cable calls for a 4,200km submarine cable to be built! I do not expect the construction cost to scale linearly and I shudder to imagine the maintenance difficulties and expenses. Back in December 2015,…
It passed government environmental requirements, a milestone for the (private sector) project’s promoters. Articles should be read a touch more carefully and cynically before jumping to outrage surely?
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can point it out, no worries. Disasters happen. But it isn't fair to claim that the risks of a nuclear disaster are worse than solar one. We haven't seen what a big solar disaster looks like yet because it has been a serious contender for ~5-10 years and it takes a few decades to figure out what a disaster looks like for any given form of power generation. For solar it could easily be quite bad and impossible…
But there was only evidence of a reduction in temperature in your link. Which would actually increase the effectiveness of Solar. The idea of a global darkness for a significant period of time, would be extinction level.
> The idea of a global darkness for a significant period of time, would be extinction level.
Your scenario not mine; and I don't know why it needs to be global. I'm talking a 12-month period with much less sunshine than normal. A scenario which other sources of power would be independent of but that solar would be very correlated with. Since the nuclear disasters we've seen so far can be escaped by walking away from them slowly, that sort of rare volcanic event influencing solar production would probably be more damaging than a nuclear plant meltdown. It could kill a lot of people.
It is similar to Fukushima where the fact that they had an unsafe nuclear plant that maybe roughly doubled the damage caused by the tsunami that hit Japan. Heavy solar use might do something similar with big volcanic eruptions. We don't really know because we've never tried mass solar use before so it is a bit hard to judge how bad catastrophic failures are vs. nuclear.
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, it's a 2 GW power link, not a 20 GW power link Yup, my bad. Title is wrong but I can't change it now. I was looking for quick figures and saw the solar capacity numbers and put them. It seems only about 1.75 GW are actually planned to go through that link.
Maybe @dang can help with the title
p.s. @dang doesn't work, which is why I didn't respond to this sooner. For guaranteed message delivery, you (or someone) need to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#245I keep seeing stuff about the viability of the cable being laid. The thing that gets me though, is the timezone shift around peak solar generation is the wrong way around. In Australia at least, peak demand is in the evening, when people get home and turn on their ACs, or cooking devices etc. I don't know about the demand patterns in Singapore, but given their heavy use of AC, I imagine their demand for power does no…
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
The station couldn't be used as a threat. And its use would be very limited in time. Taking out the rogue orbital power station would be a competition between very trigger happy militaries. Who wouldn't want to demonstrate their satellite killers on a legitimate target?
Anything which could transmit meaningful power to the ground is going to have no issue destroying anything approaching it from below. And why wouldn’t one of those powers be the ones installing such an installation in the first place?
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a little back of the envelope calculation in a discussion here last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41220499 If Australia refined _all_ of the 40,000kt of Bauxite we export each year into "frozen electricity" Aluminium, that'd only require about 600GWh, or about 4% of the 1.7GW 24x7, or 15,000GWh per year this would send to Singapore. Large datacenter are in the 100MW sort of range, so only single di…
Australia famously is not a good place to manufacture anyways because the “resource curse” makes AUD expensive and exports noncompetitive.
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indonesia is possibly the best place on the world for floating PV at sea (rather than inland lakes as it usually is).
I'm guessing you've never actually been at sea in the region during the tropical monsoon | the annual cyclone season.
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indonesia is possibly the best place on the world for floating PV at sea (rather than inland lakes as it usually is).
Is anyone floating solar panels in the ocean? That sounds tough, but obviously worth exploring.
Re: Australian government approves AAPowerLink project to export solar to Singapore
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia famously is not a good place to manufacture anyways because the “resource curse” makes AUD expensive and exports noncompetitive.
Can you expand on this, I don't see how it can be.
Natural resource sales send USD to Australia. AUD is now worth more because it is backed by more USD. Manufactured exports are also traded in USD, so Australian exports become much more expensive because workers and local materials are paid for in AUD.