They are also pretty lossy too right? Some percentage of the energy you are moving is lost to heat
Comment on TIL the cost of transporting energy around
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoI am not a power engineer, but I do know the capital costs for the wire and components all along the way is massive. They’re complicated, and they require a lot of expensive (and probably carbon intensive) materials.
Basic physics dictates it. Its more complicated than small scale DC/AC current with negligible transmission time you’re likely thinking of.
Maintenance is a pain, too. HV wires (especially the crazy DC ones) are extremely, extremely dangerous and basically can’t be near anything.
I’m not sure about installation labor costs vs a pipeline though.
chocrates@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yes, though that’s true of other methods.
Another big factor is that its very inconvenient to buffer vs tanks on either end, for transmission breaks that take time to repair, uneven energy supply/demand and stuff like that. Or even just capacitance.
A big old tank of oil on either end is cheap.
I’m not trying to shill for hydrogen or anything (I don’t like hydrogen), but this is definitely an issue.
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That’s true of pipelines, too. It’s just that the sheer quantity of energy contained in those chemical bonds of chemical fuel is massive, so amortizing the up-front capital costs across how much energy can actually move through that pipe or cable in its lifetime tends to favor a pipe full of chemical energy, on a per kWh (or per joule) basis.