zlacker

>>RobinL+(OP)
Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about.

Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment.

Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather waste wind than waste money.

>>ZeroGr+k8
Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). A balanced grid will need all of them, will need them in quantities which can cover faults in the big producers(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW). They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances, for cost and grid stability reasons.

>>redlea+ud
HVDC is now a thing. Collecting solar in Northern Austrialia and sending it to Singapore over a 3800km long transmission line. Under construction now.

>>entrop+pB
There's this incredible project to build a 10GW solar farm in Morocco (1/3 of UK peak consumption) and bring the power to the UK via HVDC cable. Amazingly they estimate only 10% losses despite being over 3800km long:

https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/

Surely HVDC links between Scotland and England could be built?

And then there are pumped hydropower storage project like this one with a proposed storage capacity of 200 GWh and 1.5GW of power:

https://www.coireglas.com

In the worst case, couldn't the excess power simply be used in electrolyzers to generate hydrogen? They may not be very efficient but it's better than throwing free energy away.

>>fmajid+uD
> Surely HVDC links between Scotland and England could be built?

why would this be necessary when the entirety of Great Britain is one synchronous grid?

>>blibbl+8H
Strangely there already is one between Scotland and Wales and two more are proposed (see the article).

I suspect NIMBYism is a big part of the explanation. Airborne AC links are efficient but ugly. Underwater AC links are tolerated by Nimbies, but inefficient. So you end up with underwater HVDC links.

>>ErikCo+4M
HVDC links are more efficient than terrestrial AC transmission lines over long distances.

>>Reason+AP
Also a lot more expensive. The UK is not big enough for it to make technical sense.

>>ErikCo+jA1
The equipment costs (eg: converter stations) for an HVDC link are more expensive, but by running under the sea you save on a lot of other costs (ie: civil engineering, land acquisition, etc).

Building any new transmission line through densely-populated England is extremely expensive. Even if you can secure the necessary land and wayleaves, nobody wants them running near their house and spoiling the views, so significant segments have to run underground in tunnels, greatly increasing costs.

Besides, the UK is not that small when linking England and Scotland. The proposed Eastern Green Link 2 (EGL2) is 440 km long: there are many existing HVDC connections much shorter than that around the world!