There Aren't Enough Cables To Meet Growing Electricity Demand (bloomberg.com) 75
High-voltage electricity cables have become a major constraint throttling the clean energy transition, with manufacturing facilities booked out for years as demand far exceeds supply capacity. The energy transition, trade barriers, and overdue grid upgrades have turbocharged demand for these highly sophisticated cables that connect wind farms, solar installations, and cross-border power networks.
The International Energy Agency estimates that 80 million kilometers of grid infrastructure must be built between now and 2040 to meet clean energy targets -- equivalent to rebuilding the entire existing global grid that took a century to construct, but compressed into just 15 years. Each high-voltage cable requires custom engineering and months-long production in specialized 200-meter towers, with manufacturers reporting that 80-90% of major projects now use high-voltage direct current technology versus traditional alternating current systems.
The International Energy Agency estimates that 80 million kilometers of grid infrastructure must be built between now and 2040 to meet clean energy targets -- equivalent to rebuilding the entire existing global grid that took a century to construct, but compressed into just 15 years. Each high-voltage cable requires custom engineering and months-long production in specialized 200-meter towers, with manufacturers reporting that 80-90% of major projects now use high-voltage direct current technology versus traditional alternating current systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is it? Oh yeah, it's all tied up in stocks and bonds and "commodities"..
I'm really wondering what you think cables are made of, if not from commodities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
where exactly do you think the money goes?
Usually into offshore accounts.. to use for future favors where needed, and/or it's going into stock buybacks and mergers/acquisitions at very highly inflated prices that are mostly due to all that free money they get from the fed
When you put money in a bank, do you think the bank keeps it in a vault?
No, they use it to make bad loans to sell off at a profit, or to acquire said bailouts, and lobby/bribe for looser regulations. They are hardly using it to finance the production of much needed electrical cable. So the government should do it, redirect money from the fed to public
I'm going to have to tell you (Score:2, Interesting)
There Aren't Enough Cables To Meet Growing Electricity Demand [...] The International Energy Agency estimates that 80 million kilometers of grid infrastructure must be built between now and 2040 to meet clean energy targets
I'm failing to see the relevance of the text to the headline. As if we were going to meet clean energy targets? As if we were trying?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I'm going to have to tell you (Score:5, Informative)
China is trying pretty hard,
China's start to the construction of 94.5 gigawatts of new coal-powered capacity and resuming construction on 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, all fueled by investment from the coal-mining sector, would suggest otherwise. Analysts may expect that China's expansion of its clean-energy capacity will slowly squeeze out coal's share of its electricity generation, but their rapid coal-power expansion is posing a "challenge" (it's amazing how "challenge" sounds so much better than "major stumbling block") to their high-level climate commitments, including commitments on reducing coal use.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
China's coal use is going down.
But since Trump [whitehouse.gov] America's coal use is up 23% [eia.gov]
Chinese people are much less polluting than Americans [ourworldindata.org]
Always have been. And probably all ways will be.
Re: I'm going to have to tell you (Score:3)
Completely CCP propaganda. The Chinese people have no choice but live under the forced rules imposed by the CCP.
The CCP doesn't give a crap about reducing pollution. They are interested in the optics of making it look like they care.
Blue skies in the US and grey skies in China.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet compared to the US, their CO2 intensity is dropping almost twice as fast [ourworldindata.org], they're building 5x as much non-fossil-fuel power generation [ourworldindata.org], the percentage of their energy that comes from fossil fuels is dropping over twice as fast [ourworldindata.org] and their share of new cars that are electric and can thus take advantage of cleaner energy is at 48% vs 10% [ourworldindata.org] (up from 38% and 9.5% respectively the year before).
I don't know whether they care or are just going for the optics of caring, but either way they seem to have done sig
Less Optics than Profits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about caring or optics, it's about cost efficiency. Renewables are the cheapest way to provide electricity, so that's what they're building.
They have gone at it far more aggressively than makes sense from a pure cost point of view. There are two possible explanations. 1) they really really care 2) they see this as a strategic technical area where they can get a lead on America and, in the long term either use it for leverage or as a way to give Chinese companies and the Chinese economy in general an advantage over the US economy.
With the US getting more and more trapped into expensive nuclear and coal, it looks more like China is going to get a
Re: (Score:2)
The best intel I got was from David Roberts "Volts" podcast, where he had on a genuine "China Expert" who has reported full-time on their business news for a long time. That guy pointed out that you can't get anything done in most provinces without appeasing the 'boss' of that province, generally the actual political head.
And a lot of those guys own coal mines, so you can't get your solar project approved without also putting in a coal plant. A lot of the power plants are solar with coal "backup", and a
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Wow,
idiot found?
Perhaps you want to look up how much China is investing into Solar and Wind and Water.
Stupid idiots.
Re: I'm going to have to tell you (Score:2)
Try looking up the amount of pollution China has due to coal usage and terrible manufacturing processes.
The US has continued to reduce pollution through modernization. China continues to build coal fire plants and destructive manufacturing.
Think I'm lying, it's not hard to look at videos and pictures of Chinese cities and notice the lack of blue skies. Something easily proven by stepping outside a house in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
That only shows you how things currently are, not how they're changing.
Since 2013, China's PM2.5 emissions have dropped 40% [ourworldindata.org] compared to only 10% in the US. Of course, China is starting from a much higher level but if they each maintained their respective rates then China's figures will be below the US's in a decade. Or if you want to talk about CO2, China has reduced the amount of CO2 emitted pe
Re: (Score:2)
So delete "clean energy targets" and add "to support data center growth."
Re: (Score:2)
As if we were going to meet clean energy targets? As if we were trying?
Who is the "we"? There are plenty of places trying, and plenty of places are already struggling with exactly what TFA is talking about. You may not be trying, then feel free to move on. Much of the world is taking a major step towards full electrification.
Re: (Score:2)
Amount of green energy is growing at exponential speed. In 2024 green energy powered 40% of global electricity. Even US has increased clean energy production and switched from coal to natural gas, which is slightly better.
So situation is constantly improving at a rapid speed.
Re: I'm going to have to tell you (Score:2)
Well said, while not a perfect solution, the US move from coal to natural gas has proven to reduce pollution.
I think the best overall solution is a combination of both "green power" and traditional power using natural gas and nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, while not a perfect solution, the US move from coal to natural gas has proven to reduce pollution.
The primary problem isn't "pollution", it's specifically greenhouse gas emissions. Is natural gas any better than coal when it comes to emissions of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases?
Re: (Score:2)
The primary problem isn't "pollution", it's specifically greenhouse gas emissions. Is natural gas any better than coal when it comes to emissions of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases?
Reducing pollution is a goal even if it is not the goal. Clean air is important.
To answer your question: Yes.
BUT... it is important to note that this depends on the type of generator in use. Older gas generators burned inefficiently and released a lot of methane into the atmosphere -making them overall about 4% worse than a modern cle
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't grow it and harvest it, (Score:3, Informative)
... you mine it and process it.
So all the price inflation in the world isn't going to do much until more copper mines and smelters are in operation - which is a decade-scale investment.
and that is why fucking around with the global commodities markets on a faster-than-monthly basis is a good way to fuck things up for decades.
Well done, Dear Leader, for acting like a Tangerine Shitgibbon. So glad to know you'll still be in power (or your appointees, as the Alzheimers bites) to try to sort out your own self-inflicted problems.
It's not just copper - a lot of high power grid lines are made of aluminium conductors with a steel core - you can get more conductivity for cheaper pylons carrying less weight. But it still needs mining and smelting.
The game changer would be if someone succeeded in inventing a sufficiently conductive carbon-based polymer. With some genetic engineering, we should be able to harvest the raw materials instead of mining them. I've been hearing about incremental advances in "plastic conductors" since I was literally in school. Sounds like it's poised for a revolution some century soon, because nobody has put any real effort into the problem. Assuming, of course, that such a thing is actually possible, of which there is no guarantee.
Re:If you don't grow it and harvest it, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you're already talking about a composite cable with steel for tensile strength and Al for conductivity, yes, you're already talking about a relatively sophisticated technology.
To be honest though, I gave up expecting "wire" to be simple nearly 40 years ago when I had to carry out repairs on wire-rope ladders for the university caving club, on whose rungs people (including me) were intending to literally hang their lives. Wires (and "soft" ropes) have not been simpl
Re:If you don't grow it and harvest it, (Score:4)
This is just the dumbest way to view actions in the world. "Deregulate always good" is just so mind destroying. The question is do you think the Minnesota Boundary Waters wildlife and wetlands area should be protected in this case. That's what the Biden admin did and they supported two other mines in the area, for this one they said the area was too vulnerable. You can disagree with that and say the mine is more important than the environment but that's what's being argued, not mining good or bad.
Meanwhile Biden passed real regulation that is having a real impact
How one mine could unlock billions in EV subsidies [technologyreview.com]
While Trump is classically tripping over his own dick
Trump’s tax-cut bill could hold back US critical minerals projects [smenet.org]
And sure, yeah we got the steel merger, meanwhile he's fucking everything else around it up. Whoopie. Your boy is fucking cooked and all the other shit besides the economy is also super fucked.
Also Trump on the campaign trail "I will stop Japan from buying United States Steel," Trump said. "They shouldn't be allowed to buy it." it wasn't until he was elected that he supported it. The guy is just fucking cooked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry is Joe Biden a Federal Judge.
Name the 3 branches you fucking nonce.
Re: (Score:2)
Also you just expertly dodge the central question (did you even think about it?) and secondly you did not address the fact that this was one of 3 MN mines with the other two receiving support.
No shit regulators have to approve it, you think even in the current admin mines open with no approval, much less one built on Federal land? I am begging you , learn how anything in this country actually works, not just what alternative media tells you.
It's funny when conservatives talk about Biden that way because the
Re: (Score:1)
Don't bother.
For idiots like him it is always the "other parties fault" or "insert president of hate", because parties and presidents always do things just "because" and never have a sane reason.
Laws do not exist anyway, and that a project gets blocked in a court, where people look at the laws and at the project and at the side effects of the project and how that contradicts the law and finally say: can not do - all this of course is the "current political party of hate" fault. Or the president himself. Or
Re: If you don't grow it and harvest it, (Score:2)
You miss the part where overregulation also causes major issues as well. There must a balance to help our country support itself and rely less on other countries in many areas.
Perfect example is allowing the majority of the US antibiotics being manufactured in China. Note I'm not blaming China for the situation. I'm just pointing out the fact we shouldn't rely on foreign nations for many critical needs. Overregulation causes such issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's a specific thing with a specific action. You want an outcome define it and then regulate to get it. If the regulation doesn't get the outcome remove it or change it.
Everybody believes in some regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
"a lot of high power grid lines are made of aluminium conductors with a steel core - you can get more conductivity for cheaper pylons carrying less weight. But it still needs mining and smelting."
Not just high power grid lines. The overhead lines into your house are too. The line connection into your breaker panel is aluminum.
As you observe, it still requires mined materials. Aluminum refining uses a lot of electricity.
While you are ranting about inept politicians remember "Joe Biden" did all he could to sh
Re: (Score:2)
The "overhead line" is underground, from the nearest substation. Which, come to think of it, has no overhead lines into it either, so it must be supplied underground too. We do things differently to America.
And the Earth and Neutral lines coming into my consumer unit (different terminology too) are definitely copper. The Live line terminates within the supply-company's fuse block, so I can't examine that with
Re: (Score:2)
High voltage transmission lines don't use copper.
They are aluminum.
CLEAN-ENERGY cables??? (Score:1)
Clearly someone wants a government handout to build more.
You don't need "new" cables or "bigger cables." Cables are limited by their ampacity, or "amp capacity" or current carrying. So you an up the votage, delivery more Watts (kilo, mega, giga, etc) without changing the cables.
In other words the original artile is a grift attempt and not written by anyone ... oh wait... Bloomberg... yeah, a grift for more money.
Pros: You can run more power through the same lines. You don't need new cables, new towers, o
Re:CLEAN-ENERGY cables??? (Score:5, Interesting)
So you [c]an up the vot[l]age
For overhead lines, you can. Up to a point. You'll have to re-insulate the lines. And perhaps replace the towers with taller ones to maintain safe clearances. But pretty soon, you'll run into corona discharge losses [iconenergia.com] and other problems. At this point, the single conductors must be replaced with conductor bundles [instrumentationtools.com] to create conductors with larger "effective diameters", reducing the electric field strength near each conductors surface.
For underground cables, nope. Exceed the insulation voltage rating and it will break down pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of different kinds of cables for different application. What you say is true, but it doesn't necessarily trivially apply in all circumstances. For example the undersea cables have limits. The person being interviewed in the article specialized in undersea cables, from what I can tell. I don't think you can simply just jack up the voltage and magically get more capacity through an existing undersea line.
As others stated, traditional overhead wires also have their limits. and are designed fo
CEO whining about China, then this at the end... (Score:4, Informative)
Back in 2014, the European Union fined all the big cabling companies for collusion. And I read through those documents. And they would go around the world and stay at hotels and talk together, and they basically say, ‘Okay, you Europeans, you stay in your market, and we Asians will go in our market.’ And if they got a request for proposals, then they would let each other know and make sure that the right bidder won the contract.
They've been fined, and today, they would say that's all in the past and I think if you look, there's no evidence that it's still going on. But if you look at it, there's kind of no reason to continue colluding; there is so much demand and constricted supply. One of the CEOs I spoke to for the story, I asked him, ‘what do you think of the competition?’ And he said to me, ‘everyone is behaving.’ So if everyone is behaving, everyone is trying to keep prices at a good level for everyone else, there's not so much expansion of supply, then there really wouldn't be a need to collude, even if they wanted to take that risk again.
Re:CEO whining about China, then this at the end.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurray capitalism!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between cartels, syndicates and other market agreements.
Obviously the border line is thin.
However if we are talking about majour infrastructure projects, there are many stupid hurdles, set up by "capitalism".
Frankly: the interaction between administration and commerce/business does not work very good. Similar as in software development. You know what it costs, when it is finished. And not before.
We want to build a new carrier. The only save assumption is: it is bigger then the current
Why is this a problem? (Score:1)
High-voltage transmission lines are aluminum conductors wrapped around stee cab;el for strength.Both of these elements are literally dirt cheap and available domestically. Trump won't need to invade Chile.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Alternative energies are decentralized.
No, they aren't. Wind and solar are both being fueled by large industrial scale developments that allow wealthy investors to benefit from the tax credits associated with building them. They could be decentralized, but things like rooftop solar do not provide the same investment opportunities. So there is no political will to get people to weatherize their homes to reduce demand or to put in rooftop solar that just competes with the industries own projects. Rooftop solar and weatherization will often more th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they are.
Your tiny little country is not "the world".
People here buy 1kW or 2kW plants with a 4kWh to 8kWh battery faster than the factories can make them. Well, the factories are catching up, especially in the battery area.
This is all completely decentralized local energy infra structure.
First of all, most here have no insane electric bills. Because they do not have the equipment to cause them. Aka, no air con. So, if they want air con, they often buy the solar panels and batteries first.
Just take bik
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't need to install solar panels, because so many have installed them already. For example today electricity cost is about minus 2 cents/kW on the cheapest time, because there is so much solar during those hours.
If I would install something, it would be batteries, but I have not done either. It is cheaper to just use electricity during the cheap times and avoid using it on the high price times. The electricity cost is about 10-20 dollars per month for me, which is insignificant with my income
Re: (Score:1)
Personally I don't need to install solar panels, because so many have installed them already. For example today electricity cost is about minus 2 cents/kW on the cheapest time, because there is so much solar during those hours.
I agree that adding more solar power capacity is nonsense when the rates go negative because of overproduction. That's just asking to pay out for solar panels, then pay again for the ability to put electricity on the grid. That only makes financial sense if there's some other income to offset that negative price, such as a government subsidy. As the government continues to pay out subsidies like this it will inevitably end up with people getting paid to open up the windows and run their air conditioner,
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't need to install solar panels, because so many have installed them already. For example today electricity cost is about minus 2 cents/kW on the cheapest time, because there is so much solar during those hours.
There is too much power available on the grid at those times, but a good portion of it is base load that can't be shut down any further. Does your local utility actually reduce your bill if you use that power? Because I suspect if you did the numbers you would find you would still come out ahead with solar panels based on the times when they weren't paying you to use power. And batteries may or may not improve that financial outcome depending on their cost.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, most here have no insane electric bills. Because they do not have the equipment to cause them. Aka, no air con.
So you are saying they have no electric heat, including heat pumps since they double as air conditioners. Seems to me then they are burning fossil fuels for heat. Maybe some small portion of the people where you live burn wood or some other biomass for heat. Is it perhaps a mild enough climate that heating isn't needed? I have my doubts.
I don't have an "insane" electric bill as I have natural gas heat, a gasoline burner parked out front, and reasonably efficient appliances. I did the math on what it wo
Re: (Score:2)
Your tiny little country is not "the world". People here buy 1kW or 2kW plants with a 4kWh to 8kWh
That is irrelevant to the demand for increased grid capacity in industrial countries
faster than the factories can make them. Well, the factories are catching up, especially in the battery area.
Which is similar to the question of grid capacity. In theory you can replace a major power plant with everyone having solar panels and batteries. In the real world there is not enough capital in the hands of those that would benefit nor resulting industrial capacity to produce the necessary panels and batteries and install them.
Its fine to talk about the world we want. But pretending its the current reality gets us nowhere.
It is more difficult than the article discribes (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is John Oliver explaining the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Just ignore the last 5 minutes where John forgets everything he said for the previous 20 minutes and goes on his anti capitalism rant.
Re: (Score:2)
The cables aren't the bottle neck. It is getting approval to buy them. The electric utilities in most of the western world are guarenteed a return on any capital investment usually of between 11% and 13%. In return they have to go to the public regulators to get approval for any capital expenditures. It is the regulators that won't approve the spending of money on new transmissions.
You're lumping the "western world" together in a way that I can't agree with. Having been to several "western world" countries I've never seen a capital investment return requirement for grid transmission (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it's not common). Are you confusing new generation projects (which in turn also require cables)? The approval for purchasing cables is largely rubberstamped in countries where grid expansion is big issue (e.g. much of Europe where electrification is a big agenda).
Re: (Score:2)
European companies do not need approval to spent money on infrastructure.
They need approval to be allowed to set up certain infrastructure at a certain place.
You can not simply set up a power line through a forest and the adjacent fields.
Or set up a "power plant of your preferred type" at an arbitrary place, not even if you own the place.
Return of investment is completely irrelevant, that is up the company and not to any regulation or approval.
Re:It is more difficult than the article discribes (Score:4, Interesting)
Manufacturing facilities for these cables are booked out for years because of the demand caused by regulators not allowing companies to buy the cables. Too much regulation!
And then you bring up Texas and PG&E and blame the regulators for not regulating more!
Brilliant! You've solved it, Sherlock!
Re:It is more difficult than the article discribes (Score:5, Interesting)
e cables aren't the bottle neck. It is getting approval to buy them. The electric utilities in most of the western world are guarenteed a return on any capital investment usually of between 11% and 13%. In return they have to go to the public regulators to get approval for any capital expenditures. It is the regulators that won't approve the spending of money on new transmissions.
I don't think that is true. Its ideological BS.
There certainly are regulatory processes for new transmission lines. But getting approval is not what's holding things up. Its that there is limited capacity in our economy for constructing them and we heavily subsidize the large centralized power facilities that require them. The necessary new grid capacity is a separate process from the decisions to add new demand on the grid.
That is not an accident. It serves the interests of both generating and transmission investors. No one has any interest in keeping costs down. To the contrary, the more expensive the better for the reason you point out. They are guaranteed a return and the larger the investment the bigger the return.
Greenwashing cleantech horseshit (Score:1)
Don't worry. Trump is helping.... (Score:3)
Trump is helping alleviate the world's shortage of grid equipment by pushing for a rescission of all the green energy bills and projects funded during the Biden admin. Of course this is all because the fossil fuel industry owns the MAGA party.
Slammed (Score:2)
Utilities would rather build new lines (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that utilities can make lots of profit by building a new transmission line. They are guaranteed a 10%+ rate of return on everything they invest.
There is an alternative.
Currently, the capacity of a line is calculated as a fixed number using a worst case scenario of high temperature, etc. However, most of the time this artificially limits the line capacity. There exist line monitoring systems which can take into account real world conditions and allow existing lines to carry more power
\o/ (Score:1)
Make more, duh
Supply meet demand (Score:2)
These stories will pop up from time to /. and elsewhere. The gist is someone forecasts a demand that the world doesnâ(TM)t seem able to meet. But just like all the others this one will be solved in due time by usual supply/demand curves. The price offered will go up encouraging expansion of supplyâ¦there will be substitutions, innovations, etc.
time on
The add on to these stories is usually a free-market guy who is asking for government financial help to solve the âoecrisisâ
Eggs ar