[diordiderot]

Transmission loses are 3% per 1000km so moving electricity from morroco to the UK would result in ~6% loss in electricity.

Saying

> There will be times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine

Is just FUD. The wind is blowing and the sun is shining in many places within 2000km no matter where you live

[lazide]

Plenty of wars have been fought already over oil and gas, and it’s waay easier to redirect tankers when a geopolitical player starts trying to squeeze someone hard. Note however that pipelines already have been caught in the middle of geopolitical drama.

And oil and gas are energy dense enough (and storing it is cheap/easy enough), it’s possible and common to stockpile months to years worth of supplies. All it takes is some big metal tanks.

Not sure how that is going to play out when it takes a decade plus to build a HVDC line, that line is in a fixed position (so easy to sabotage/destroy) and it’s orders of magnitude more expensive to store electricity - so most places will be lucky to even have a couple of days worth of storage.

I’m honestly not sure which will be more dramatic looking if someone bombs it though.

For somewhere with constant good insolation and low winter energy needs (like the Australian Outback, for instance), not likely to be a problem. Australia has never been meaningfully invaded or bombed either. So centralization is likely not a huge concern for them.

For somewhere with peak energy needs that coincide with minimal insolation (and often wind!), like long dark winters? And temps that can easily result in people freezing to death? And that has a history of conflict with neighbors?

Like Germany, France, Norway, Finland, etc.

Yikes.

[diordiderot]

It takes a decade plus to build a HVDC line because of western political incompetence.

I'd bet the chinese could run a line from Bejing to Lhasa in 6 months.

[howerj]

I find that fact that the UK would depend on another country for power generation in a serious way really really dumb. There is no other way of putting it. If we did that we might as well sell off our armed forces and declare global peace unilaterally, that is how naive that option is. It would make the UK, or any country that did that, incredibly vulnerable. We cannot ever lose power.

[diordiderot]

The UK imports 5 Twh of electricity from France as it is so I guess you should start up the auctions.

After failing to successfully launch a Trident missile for 8 years it probably wouldn't change much.

You've only managed to send to Ukraine what the US spends on parks.

Honestly at some point you all need to accept that you really aren't a meaningful player in geopolitics anymore and focus on getting GDP per capital higher than that of Americas poorest state.

Seriously you can't afford to not dump feces in your waterways, what other option do you have.

Uncle Sam and the Polish will keep you safe. The only threat you need to worry about is the machete gangs you keep importing to keep your Pret delivery under 3 quid.

[sparks1970]

Harsh, but fair.

[howerj]

The comment is harsh, but it is not fair. Nor is (most of it) relevant and it even contradicts itself in places. It is a list of hot takes designed to anger and provoke instead of elucidate anything as I have said something they do not like.

Energy security is something every country should aim for, regardless of the size or perceived importance of the country.

[diordiderot]

My point was that long distance power transmission is a economically viable means of tackling the "renewable intermittency" problem.

> I find that fact that the UK would depend on another country for power generation in a serious way really really dumb.

Very erudite, but the UK imports 40% of its energy. It is already heavily dependent on other countries.

Building out more renewables and importing the extra 20% whenever the wind isn't blowing so hard isn't a risk to national security.

If the lines were cut you would be in a total war situation where

1. power would be rationed anyways

2. The wide distribution of renewables would be much harder to destroy than a handful of oil terminals, rigs, and ports.

> We might as well sell off our armed forces.

I don't see how this is relevant outside of the UK's desire to defend its foreign energy interests / trade, which it very obviously cant do anyways.

[howerj]

You keep deliberately conflating energy and electricity. Importing energy and electricity is not the same thing. The UK cannot source its energy requirements locally but it can source electricity by importing energy and converting it to electricity.

Where we import from matters, importing from France and the Nordic countries is far more viable and easily defensible than importing from Morocco. It is still not a great idea to rely on them.

I agree that renewable generation being more distributed is harder to destroy than oil infrastructure (not that anyone has the operational capacity to attack the UKs infrastructure barring the USA with any great success) but that is not what it is a risk - the HVDC lines are! They are much easier to take out. If renewables require a HVDCs to less stable and friendly areas of the world then they make the UK more vulnerable - it is dumb.

>> We might as well sell off our armed forces.

> I don't see how this is relevant outside of the UK's desire to defend its foreign energy interests / trade, which it very obviously cant do anyways.

That's hyperbole, selling off our armed forces is a naive move that no nation would rationally do, as is becoming so incredibly dependent on a chain of other countries for electricity generation.

I prefer a solution that does not involve rationing electricity.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Just wait until you find out how much oil and gas the UK imports.

[howerj]

I already know this, it doesn't change anything. Who is able to blockade the UK's access to oil, gas or uranium, all of which are much easier to stockpile than electricity? The only one with that capability is the USA. Who is able to attack a HVDC line? Anyone with a fifth rate navy.

[Qwertious]

Pretty sure UK needs to import uranium, too.

[cmenge]

That's a false argument. Uranium gives you power for years, and can be sourced from multiple sellers. That is very different from a line that the other side or a third party can simply cut. Point in case: NordStream pipelines that supplied Germany.

[7thaccount]

It isn't FUD. This is something the system operators and utilities are taking very seriously and talk about daily.

We have decarbonized a lot in the US already, but we still have a long ways to go. A future of just solar, wind, and storage is still a very long ways off. We'd need a lot of load that is responsive to price and we're just not there yet. That's unattractive politically. People are fine with renewables until all those fixed costs creep into their bills and they're told that they have to go to dynamic pricing to make you hyper conserve electricity during the times you want to use it the most.

Yes, we'll eventually get there, but I strongly believe that gas will still be a big player as a backstop/reserve...maybe with carbon capture technology which runs all out during times of renewable abundance to counter the carbon output of the gas. Will it be practical though?