Power cable from Oz to Singapore

In a now closed thread Powerabout said this:
“Scotland to Singapore cable, yes I’m all for it”

I’m afraid that is not likely, but Australia to Singapore is about to become reality (maybe):

So if my anchor snags on it and I cut it in half to get loose, how mad will Singapore be?

1 Like

Look at your chart and don’t anchor where there are ANY cables indicated.

It can get expensive to do otherwise. (Especially HWDC Cables)

They’ll just smile and say “Don’t do it again.”

1 Like

Having worked on a cable repair ship, its more likely that you are going to be abandoning your anchor than pulling up that trunk line and cutting through it. Obviously it can happen with the smaller cables, hence why we had work repairing them, but that transoceanic cable if f-ing massive.

Cutting through a HVDC cable MAY not be very wise, especially when power is on. (Common sense)

Thanks for the chuckle.

Sharks evidently have no common sense. They are fond of biting sections that are not buried. Attracted by the electrical impulses, maybe? In any case, they never finish the job so they must be getting shocks.

Good one.

Very likely, especially if they are biting into a cable carrying 600 kV:
https://www.europacable.eu/energy/hvdc-cables

I read online somewhere that a lot of Australians aren’t happy that they will be exporting solar energy yet get so much of their own energy from hydrocarbons, especially coal.

They say a big reason that Australia isn’t using it’s solar energy potential for it’s own domestic electricity supply is that coal lobbyists/shills have so much influence over the government. There are some rich and powerful people who have a big vested interest in having a high coal consumption over going solar.

Australia’s primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent). Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent).

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/basics

Powerabout will be happy. He is an Aussie, but live in Singapore, so he get clean power while his mates in Oz gets to keep their dirty coal business.

1 Like

They should keep the solar electrons and export the oily electrons, then. Everyone will be happy. </sarc>

Australia has massive untapped solar potential as mentioned in the quote below.

Currently, solar energy accounts for just over 5 per cent of Australia’s total power generation despite it having the world’s highest average solar radiation – the potential for solar energy – of about 58 million petajoules of energy, or about 10,000 times the nation’s annual energy consumption. The size of a solar farm needed to power all of Australia would cover about 6270 square kilometres or approximately 0.1 per cent of the country.

No.
Rich buyers are willing to pay a higher price for green electrons… if delivered with a nice certificate.
Only then everybody is happy.

1 Like

I think the people getting upset want no oily electrons kept or exported.

1 Like

A resource in solar that Australia has that many countries wish they had. Cmon Aussies

The US has some sun drenched deserts that is not much used as well. Couldn’t those be put to use as energy sources?

Far from densely populated areas that need the power you say?
Yes, but instead of building ugly and expensive power line in prestin nature, use the solar power to produce hydrogen that can be used to power vehicles, trains, inland and short sea ships etc…
And/or fuel cells to produce electricity right at the locations where it is needed.
PS> This also solves the problem of “the sun don’t shine at night”

Same applies for wind farms in windy areas, but where there are not much sun.

I know, I know; what about transportation and storage of hydrogen?
Is it more costly, difficult or dangerous than transporting and storing Gasoline, or LNG?

Of course some steel, aluminum or composite materials are going to be used in the manufacturing and construction process, so it wouldn’t be TOTALLY “carbon free”. (At least initially)
Better don’t do ANYTHING. Just go on as before and let the next generations solve the problem.

Why do you not propose the proven, not ugly and inexpensive telepathy to transport the hydrogen over thousands of kilometers?

Why thousands of km? Produce hydrogen from nearest renewable energy source to the consumers, whether that be wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, or any other source that may become available in the future.
PS> For Hydrogen production in desert environment acceess to enough water may be a bigger issue than transportation of the finished product.

PPS> Hydrogen is also a by-product of some industrial processes, but this MAY also create GHG emission…