Power cables are getting cheaper and cheaper. The expensive part used to be the voltage conversion stations at the ends, but with mass production of MOSFETs for EV's these have now become far cheaper than the JFET's and other exotic silicon that used to be used.
In turn, that means voltages can be higher, letting one use more of the cheaper PVC or XLPE insulating material and less expensive aluminium for the same amount of energy delivered a large number of kilometers.
To be honest, I don't think we're many decades away from the cable+conversion stations themselves cost being irrelevant, and the administration costs, land purchase costs, etc dominating.
> The expensive part used to be the voltage conversion stations at the ends, but with mass production of MOSFETs for EV's these have now become far cheaper than the JFET's and other exotic silicon that used to be used.
Why do you believe these things are related?
HVDC lines operate in the hundreds-of-kilovolts range. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basslink operates at 400kV. There are no MOSFETs or JFETs directly involved in stepping down that power.
Semiconductors are stackable to get higher voltage. They're parallelizable for more current.
Cost scales linearly with voltage and current, and is therefore constant WRT to system power.
Thyristors require you have at least one transformer operate at AC line frequency (50/60Hz). That costs a lot, since you need enough steel to store 20 milliseconds of your total power as a magnetic field. Thyristors are on-off devices (like most semiconductors when used for power conversion), but cannot turn off without zero current, which precludes a bunch of high frequency designs which are better for harmonics and weight-of-steel.
Overall, they were a popular choice in the 90's and 2010's, but I don't think we'll see any new designs installed with them.
I've never heard of MOSFETs being used in extra-high voltage systems, but I have not been following the industry for a while. Do you have any links? I've only seen IGBTs or older technology used.
Nah - the insulation material costs ~ $0.80/liter, whereas aluminium conductor costs $6.50/liter.
If you can have the conductor 1mm^2 thinner (capable of carrying less current for the same heat production) and the insulation 1mm^2 thicker (capable of handling a higher voltage) and transfer the same power, then you'd save money.
It only works up to a certain limit obviously - the relationship is non-linear and there is an optimal point.
The actual tradeoff involves a lot more modelling, because you need to consider all kinds of other factors, not just the costs of the conductor and insulator.
The problem with long distance AC is the reactive power component caused by the capacitance, and the voltage rise caused by the Ferranti effect.
The reactive component has significant impact on the generation equipment and grids. It also causes the Ferranti effect, where the voltage along the cable rises. This can make managing the voltage within the cable difficult because at no load, the load end has a higher voltage than the source, and when loaded, the middle of the cable has a higher voltage than both ends.
During stable operation these effects can be managed with Statcoms, shunt reactors and voltage regulation tap changers. However during transient operation you will be relying upon the static protective devices such as surge arrestors, depending on how large the transient is.
DC transmission does not suffer from the same reactive power component and has less losses, but it does require large convertor stations at both ends.
It doesn't seem like anyone directly answered your question. As far as I am aware, all long distance undersea power cables are high voltage DC. I believe this has to do with the efficiency of power transfer over long distances.
AC loses power by inductively and capacitively coupling to nearby objects. It's manageable at medium distances above ground, cheaper than a pair of converter stations. However, water is much more conductive than air and losses from an underwater AC cable would be much greater.
AC is a sine wave, of which the peak is a factor of Sqrt(2) higher than the DC voltage. That means your insulation needs to be sqrt(2) thicker - ie. 41% more insulation material.
On top of that, you also have losses to the cables capacitance with AC.
But DC has the cost of the conversion stations to consider - both capital cost and efficiency causing operational cost.
> But DC has the cost of the conversion stations to consider - both capital cost and efficiency causing operational cost.
I suppose you mean AC-DC conversion stations. Assuming only solar energy will be "pumped" over the wire, then the "only" conversion stations that are needed are at the consumer, right? I said it before, I don't know much about electricity, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
> It’s really difficult to make solid state components that work at million+ volts.
You can split (or add up) the million volts as transmitted at either end so the individual components only work across a small fraction of the 1MV potential difference. This is how can get 12V from 1.5V batteries or use 1V LEDs from a 12V line.
That principle doesn't work as well at high voltages because generally it's a pain for a rack of equipment (such as solar panels) to have a potential between them and ground of 1 million volts.
Yup, high voltage has special challenges because even super tiny leakage currents (which are normal unless extreme precautions are taken) transmit significant power and cause extreme breakdowns rather quickly in most materials.
At very high (million+ volts) we’re talking even quantum tunneling effects producing enough current to cause material breakdowns. It’s pretty nuts.
It’s a big reason why glass and ceramic are so commonly used at those voltages as insulators - they are one of the few materials stable enough and electrically insulating enough to last long term.
Splitting things up like being discussed works when it’s possible to do so without creating even more leakage current paths, which is extremely difficult to do with sizable equipment in the million+ volt range. Folks eventually were able to do so, which is why HVDC eventually became a thing, but it is far from easy or cheap. My understanding is almost all HVDC lines run at lower voltages than their equivalent AC counterparts do as well, due to these technical limitations.
HVDC currently tends to be used for longer runs, where AC inductive losses exceed the equivalent capital costs challenges HVDC has. AC has significant inductive loss issues when run under ground or undersea.
At low voltages, those same leakage currents can’t transmit enough power to damage things or even cause measurable power losses, so don’t matter.
These effects starts being noticable in the > 1kv range, significant in the > 10kv range, quite problematic in the > 100kv range, and very difficult (maybe impossible using known material science in some scenarios) to deal with in the >= 1MV range.
Semiconductors have the added challenge that they often have noticeable leakage currents even in the low voltage ranges (even with specialized designs) and it makes it even harder.
Additionally, Arc faults in DC transmission infrastructure are extremely difficult to control, as unlike AC there is no zero-voltage crossing point (as there is no waveform, in general). So unlike AC, arcs are not likely to self extinguish, and require complete interruption of current flow. Which is actually a really hard problem to solve for several reasons at the power levels involved here.
Amusingly (IMHO), The band's line-up remained the same for 20 years until 2014 when Malcolm retired due to early-onset dementia, from which he died three years later; additionally, Rudd was charged with threatening to kill and possession of methamphetamine and cannabis. Stevie, who replaced Malcolm, debuted on the album Rock or Bust (2014). On the accompanying tour, Slade filled in for Rudd. In 2016, Johnson was advised to stop touring due to worsening hearing loss. So a rocker's fate: forgot what planet they were on, went mad on drugs becoming threats to society, lost their hearing, or kept touring indefinitely with a changing lineup cashing in on past glories.
is there any thing special about the nature of such project that makes you ask this question? By default, long range transmission is always DC for that exact reason.
Aluminium is far less dense, which in turn makes the whole cable bigger, which has other costs (eg. fewer kilometers of cable fit in a boat). Usually it's still the best choice overall though.
In turn, that means voltages can be higher, letting one use more of the cheaper PVC or XLPE insulating material and less expensive aluminium for the same amount of energy delivered a large number of kilometers.
To be honest, I don't think we're many decades away from the cable+conversion stations themselves cost being irrelevant, and the administration costs, land purchase costs, etc dominating.