Has the war in Ukraine killed HVDC from Northern Africa?

Every now and then someone points out that you could power all the UK's needs, or even all of Europe with solar panels located in a relatively small area of North Africa. Of course, there is a technical problem with this - getting the electrical energy all the way to its destination. The preferred solution tends to be HVDC - high voltage direct current.

Traditionally, we've used AC (alternating current) to transmit power, because it's easy to switch voltages of AC using transformers. High voltage is desirable for long distance transmission, because this reduces the amount of current required to carry the same amount of energy, and the lower the current, the less that is lost to heat. However, now it is far more practical to convert DC to AC, HVDC has become important because it can reduce both the cost of the transmission process and the energy loss. It is now used for many of the interconnectors that allow electricity to flow between countries.

Perhaps more obvious than the selection of HVDC is the reason for suggesting North Africa, as the nearest region for Europe that has such high levels of sun exposure combined with a lot of unused/otherwise unusable open space.

I've always been concerned that this approach is naive. The science might now be feasible, but the politics has always been worrying. Energy supply is crucial to modern civilisation - and it would be unwise to place a large proportion of our electricity generation in the hands of another country.

This concern has, in the past, been represented as xenophobic, but over the years, the nations that supply one source of energy - oil - have demonstrated time and again how they can use their near-monopoly to political gain. And now, the impact of the war in Ukraine on energy supplies to Europe and the associated costs of disruption (which include some countries re-opening coal-fired power stations - horrendous from an environmental viewpoint) has demonstrated just how important it is that countries generate as much of their energy themselves as they can.

What always seemed to some degree an impractical suggestion has now, I would suggest, been shown to be a totally irresponsible concept. If anyone is still suggesting it, they need to think again.

Image: HVDC power lines in North Dakota by Wtshymanski from Wikipedia

This has been a Green Heretic production.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog