$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cable from North Africa

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by frognumber on Thursday March 09, 2023 @05:31PM (#35087766)

If I were a planner, I'd go for both.

Impossible in capitalism or with modern politics, but I planning for failure makes a lot of sense to me, and I don't mind having a power grid support 2x capacity.

Same for food, medicine, and general-purpose manufacturing (e.g. machine shops), for that matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by diordiderot on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:07PM (#35088129)

The electricity actually _has to_ go _somewhere_. You could make a lot of batteries but double usage every day would build up fast

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by crote on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:12PM (#35088191)

The market will compensate for it.

We might end up seeing peaker plants. We might see companies taking advantage of the price difference to cheaply run energy-intensive industry like aluminium smelting. We might see companies trying to take advantage of the price difference by building storage batteries. We might even end up incentivizing consumers to shift their usage patterns by providing cheaper electricity during low-demand periods.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by frognumber on Saturday March 11, 2023 @04:14AM (#35106769)

Power plants can be kept offline.

[ Parent | on HN ]