European Energy Independence

[Mega Tsunami]

Well, at the height of the Brexit brouhaha, Macron did threaten to cut off the power link between France and Britain.

These are a band of fraudsters in London seeking to steal some financing. There's no way that cable can work technically. Too long. It's hard enough to run power across the Mediterranean.
The longest power cable deployed, currently not in regular use yet, crosses the shallow North Sea and is much shorter. Flawed, also. This proposed cable would go through deep seas, as I know those coasts very well - there's not chance it could hug the coast from the UK all the way to Africa, none. That project is a fraud.

Any connection between North Africa and Europe cannot circumvent geography, nor physics. Losses are going to be high and the path must be through land wherever possible to make maintenance feasible. Northern Europe will not have cheap(er) solar energy from Africa unless they invent some now-magical energy transmission technology.

After we laid the first telegraph cable across the English Channel in about 1850 they said we will never get a cable across the Atlantic. It just won’t work – too far, too deep etc etc. Much like you here.

Well they did manage it of course… eventually. The first ones failed but new tech made it possible in the end.

When there is a great need for something, as there is now, the scent of profit at the end of it often leads to great innovations.

With the cable working fine between Norway and Britain it would be a huge disappointment if they didn’t, at least, try longer and longer undersea connections.

Maybe you are right but it is still well worth a try.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I refer to Iceland

https://www.marinetechnologynews.com/news/undersea-cable-iceland-europe-609651

 

[GinandTonic]

I said 1km deep. Gibraltar strait is a bit more than 13km wide at the narrowest point, the cable however is several km longer actually to avoid the deepest zone which is just at the narrowest point.

Carrying electricity from Sahara desert to Europe and then to UK is perfectly possible trough existing networks (with some work to do obviously) doing it the proposed way looks needlessly difficult, totally illogical and ridiculously expensive, but feasible. The idea is to avoid the EU at all cost i suppose.

While avoiding the EU is doubtless a factor, ever since that whole issue with the French not letting us tranship gas while we were still EU members, that's not the key.

Local grids are at far lower voltages and far less efficient at long distance transmission. Conversion losses to and from very high voltages are significant. If the intention is to equalise demand the national grids are fine. If the plan is to shift huge amounts of electricity from Morocco to the North Sea dedicated high voltage lines are required.

If I understand it correctly a lot of the shorter high voltage lines have less to do with transmission losses than converting the electricity to DC and back again to keep the separate grids isolated from each others frequency etc.

Plus the French can't hang us out to dry again.

 

[EvaDK]

The UK is in close proximity to some of Europes largest energi net contributing nations. A sea cable already links the UK to Norway and France; a sea cable to Denmark becomes operational in 2023. That will link the UK to electricity supply from 3 additional Nordic nations (Denmark, Sweden, Finland). Why would the UK need to construct an additional link to Northern Africa?

 

[João III]

The UK is in close proximity to some of Europes largest energi net contributing nations. A sea cable already links the UK to Norway and France; a sea cable to Denmark becomes operational in 2023. That will link the UK to electricity supply from 3 additional Nordic nations (Denmark, Sweden, Finland). Why would the UK need to construct an additional link to Northern Africa?

Isn't it always cheaper to buy direct?

 

[EvaDK]

Isn't it always cheaper to buy direct?

For the money it would cost to lay an underwater cable from the UK to another continent + inland installations, the UK could probably just build their own 1,000-1,500MW offshore wind turbine park instead.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

While avoiding the EU is doubtless a factor, ever since that whole issue with the French not letting us tranship gas while we were still EU members, that's not the key.

Local grids are at far lower voltages and far less efficient at long distance transmission. Conversion losses to and from very high voltages are significant. If the intention is to equalise demand the national grids are fine. If the plan is to shift huge amounts of electricity from Morocco to the North Sea dedicated high voltage lines are required.

If I understand it correctly a lot of the shorter high voltage lines have less to do with transmission losses than converting the electricity to DC and back again to keep the separate grids isolated from each others frequency etc.

Plus the French can't hang us out to dry again.

There is a huge 220 kilovolts network running across all Europe exclusively dedicated to energy transportation.

Any submarine cable will have similar characteristics. I think the key here is in your last short paragraph.

 

[uppi]

For the money it would cost to lay an underwater cable from the UK to another continent + inland installations, the UK could probably just build their own 1,000-1,500MW offshore wind turbine park instead.

The key with wind and solar is not to put all your eggs into one basket. If there is little wind in the North Sea, there may well be a strong wind near Morocco.

There is a huge 220 kilovolts network running across all Europe exclusively dedicated to energy transportation.

Any submarine cable will have similar characteristics. I think the key here is in your last short paragraph.

Actually no. The cable will be high-voltage DC. I could not find the voltage they are aiming for, but it is going to be at least 800 kV, possibly more. This is a huge reduction in losses compared to a 220 kV-AC line.

And you cannot just put a few GW into a transmission network at one end and expect it to come out at the other end. There likely is not enough capacity to transfer that much power. If you are serious about renewable energy, these huge long-distance links are exactly what is necessary.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Ad hoc stuff is always better of course, but I doubt the huge additional cost is justifiable on a technical basis only.

 

[uppi]

Ad hoc stuff is always better of course, but I doubt the huge additional cost is justifiable on a technical basis only.

I tried to make an estimate how big the losses would be, if you tried to transport electricity over 3000 km using a 220 kV-line: My result was 98-99%. A 800 kV HVDC line would have less than 10% losses over the same distance. So the technical justification is: It is essentially impossible using the existing 220 kV-Grid, but a new direct connection would have acceptable losses. If you want to use power from Morocco in the UK, there is simply no alternative to a direct link.

 

[Zardnaar]

I tried to make an estimate how big the losses would be, if you tried to transport electricity over 3000 km using a 220 kV-line: My result was 98-99%. A 800 kV HVDC line would have less than 10% losses over the same distance. So the technical justification is: It is essentially impossible using the existing 220 kV-Grid, but a new direct connection would have acceptable losses. If you want to use power from Morocco in the UK, there is simply no alternative to a direct link.

I'm an idiot in technical specifications. Here functionally we have huge amounts of hydro power.

But we can't transport it to where it's needed the most. You lose to much power. Long narrow country about 2000 odd kilometers.

I was wondering if Europe's better at it or can afford/has the ability to do it or if it's beyond anyone's technical ability.

Clean hydrogen may be a thing idk.

 

[uppi]

I'm an idiot in technical specifications. Here functionally we have huge amounts of hydro power.

But we can't transport it to where it's needed the most. You lose to much power. Long narrow country about 2000 odd kilometers.

I was wondering if Europe's better at it or can afford/has the ability to do it or if it's beyond anyone's technical ability.

Clean hydrogen may be a thing idk.

China has multiple > 2000 km links, Brazil has one, so it is certainly technically feasible.

 

[innonimatu]

I tried to make an estimate how big the losses would be, if you tried to transport electricity over 3000 km using a 220 kV-line: My result was 98-99%. A 800 kV HVDC line would have less than 10% losses over the same distance. So the technical justification is: It is essentially impossible using the existing 220 kV-Grid, but a new direct connection would have acceptable losses. If you want to use power from Morocco in the UK, there is simply no alternative to a direct link.

I don't question the feasibility of transporting over such distances. The canadians also die some very long-distance links almost a century ago. What I question is the crazy idea of doing it with an underseas cable. It's setting up a maintenance disaster. Not going to happen.
The UK will just have to understand that it can't both conspire to destroy the continent and get good stuff, because some of that stuff must come overland.

 

[GinandTonic]

I don't question the feasibility of transporting over such distances. The canadians also die some very long-distance links almost a century ago. What I question is the crazy idea of doing it with an underseas cable. It's setting up a maintenance disaster. Not going to happen.
The UK will just have to understand that it can't both conspire to destroy the continent and get good stuff, because some of that stuff must come overland.

There is no issue with undersea cables. It's just not an issue.

I'm not saying this idea will work out, but you're commentary is, as ever, simply your political bile with no attachment to reality or science. You hate the UK. We know that. Do you have anything remotely informed to say on the issue at hand?

 

[EnglishEdward]

The UK will just have to understand that it can't both conspire to destroy the continent..

Is this about:

(a) the scheme's adverse impact on Africa.
(b) UK support for Ukraine; or
(c) something else?

 

[innonimatu]

There is no issue with undersea cables. It's just not an issue.

I'm not saying this idea will work out, but you're commentary is, as ever, simply your political bile with no attachment to reality or science. You hate the UK. We know that. Do you have anything remotely informed to say on the issue at hand?

Now I hate the UK? I was one of the few saying you were better off outside the EU and defending the majority that voted out, there.

What I hate is idiocy. And this plan is that. It must be coming from the idiots who think they can both destabilize the EU (you're welcome as far as I am concerned, just don't set up a massive war on the continent to do it!) and at the same time want to get energy that must come overland from the continent.

The key here is must. A submarine cable that long, and across those seas specifically, will be impossible to maintain. It's a stupid idea, a project that can't be done. The realistic project is to integrate with a grid stretching between North Africa and the whole of Europe. And that requires diplomacy.

We'll see how the North Sea cable does. But that one may work because 1. the NS is shallow 1. distance is smaller 3. when it does fail it's not goind to be a big part of the UK's energy supply.
This proposal is insane: it was about getting a big part of that energy supply over a single cable. Damage could not be routed around nearly painlessly as is done with underseas communication cables.

The UK needs serious people in its government or public service. It has none so this band of thieves may get financing and waste it. If I hated the UK I would be saying nothing and waiting to have a laugh.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I have my suspicions about this proposed link to Africa.

Are the financiers targeting personal investors or the energy corporations or the government.

Many UK energy companies have been recording record profits.

Some countries are thinking in terms of windfall taxes.

The UK government is instead thinking of threatening energy companies with a windfall
tax unless they make major investments in environmentally friendly energy supplies.

So promising now to invest a lot in a scheme that they know likely won't be approved
or work, is tactically useful to thwart such windfall taxes. Of course they are unlikely to
actually invest in it without a government guarantee relying on a due diligence get-out.

 

[GinandTonic]

I have my suspicions about this proposed link to Africa.

Are the financiers targeting personal investors or the energy corporations or the government.

Many UK energy companies have been recording record profits.

Some countries are thinking in terms of windfall taxes.

The UK government is instead thinking of threatening energy companies with a windfall
tax unless they make major investments in environmentally friendly energy supplies.

So promising now to invest a lot in a scheme that they know likely won't be approved
or work, is tactically useful to thwart such windfall taxes. Of course they are unlikely to
actually invest in it without a government guarantee relying on a due diligence get-out.

They are offering to build it for a floor price almost half of what new nuclear is offered and c. a quarter of the current actual price.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Who is they?

 

[GinandTonic]

Who is they?

Have you read the proposal we are discussing? MegaT, about three pages back. Read the full article in the spoiler, the link is paywalled.