On 17/10/2020 19:41, Brian Reay wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:37:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/10/2020 13:49, Jeff Layman wrote:
I suppose the real question is whether or not a practical RT
superconducting power transmission line would be cheaper than the
current ones. Is it possible to compare the differences in cost of
manufacture, use, maintenance, etc?

The copper cost of an undersea HVDC cable is the smallest part. All the
cost is in laying it, in the armouring and the massive insulations
needed and in the layers that (seriously) deter shark attack and the
like.


And operated at the sorts of levels the cables are, the actual cable
losses are probably well below 5% - there are more losses in the
inverters and rectifier circuits. So a superconductor cable represents
very very little gain at all.

Obviously if it was as cheap and easy to manufacture as copper everyone
would use it routinely, but it wouldn't affect the decision to lay the
cable or not.

My issue was only with the stupidity of the statement that such a
material would make the implementation of a global supergrid
*inevitable*.

It's as stupid as the 'renewable energy is free' statement, So too is
coal gas, uranium,... God doesn't charge for any of them. Always, what
counts is the lifetime cost of the total solution.

Lossless distribution makes an awful lot of substations redundant, TurNiP.

No, it doesn't. You simply do not understand why they are there. Or the
limitations of superconduction.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"