# Feasibility of electric transmission over long distances **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 30, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946 "2014-09-30T06:12:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/41 "2014-10-01T15:13:26Z")
When you consider the likelihood of these things being built it all comes back to whether there is an economic case and that is different for each country that controls its own energy policy. Most national grids were built in the decades following WW2 and they were designed to link power stations running on non-renewable fuels. These national grids were remarkable achievements, but they are now old and there are challenges. Renewable energy sources are often in remote locations, far from industry and big cities and the power they produce is highly variable, depending on regional weather patterns. You have to create a very large grid indeed to even out the peaks and troughs of supply from renewables and that is impractical from a technical point of view and international politics makes it very difficult. Even in the EU, they have only just started to think about a single market for power. The number of links between grids is fairly small. However, besides the fact that national grids are now very old, there are some factors that are forcing change. The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster caused by the Japanese earthquake has had a dramatic affect on policy. Some countries like Germany intend to dismantle their nuclear generator capacity completely despite its obvious advantages and develop renewable energy from solar and windfarms. This requires a major re-engineering of their national grid and HVDC is a key technology. They have to solve a lot of the technical switching issues in the process. The alternative is to see the cost of electricity rise inexorably causing great harm to important industries. Moreover, a lot of renewable wind power is generated but not used, because there is not way to move it to the places where it is in demand. > **[Germany's Expensive Gamble on Renewable Energy](https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602)** > > Germany's Energiewende, or energy revolution, is a mammoth, trillion-euro plan to wean the country off nuclear and fossil fuels by midcentury, but many companies worry the enormous cost will undermine the country's competitiveness. In other countries, there just is not the same economic and political pressure and power generation and distribution is part of a wider debate that takes into account smart metering and energy conservation on the consumption side as well as micro-generation and renewables. What happens if electric vehicles take off? Continental scale supergrids are being discussed, but there are such things in place already…for natural gas. Sadly it has been the source of more than a little political concern of late. There is a lot of work being done to interconnect EU countries natural gas networks to stop Mr Putin from switching everyones central heating in the middle of winter. [Here's One Economic Reason Russia's Invasion of Crimea Pulls in Europe](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-one-economic-reason-russias-invasion-of-crimea-pulls-in-europe-2014-3) This has concentrated minds in Europe and there a projects to develop the gas network to ensure it can also be supplied from the West. International energy grids have strategic political significance. I think we will see more HVDC inter-connects between countries in the short term to help countries balance their demand on their national grids and maybe some HVDC grids to link offshore wind turbines. A supergrid will grow out of this in the longer term. There is no shortage of grand strategic plans, but there is still a debate about whether to use HVDC or HVAC. If the Germans make it work, that could settle the issue. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/42 "2014-10-02T01:07:03Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Yeah, definitely. But the trend seems fairly inevitable. The trend for what ? I see Japan investing big in LNG just like China. I see Spain slapping itself for investing so much in solar. Solar panels getting cheaper does not equate to industries investing in solar power for their needs because there are a lot of other factors to consider such as : reliability of the panels, availability of power, degradation over time, maintenance requirements, etc. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > I guess my point is that if we accept your implicit premise that we can get cheap solar somewhere on Earth, and that the problem is distribution, **then shipping ore to that locale and getting pure aluminum back is a lot like shipping an uncharged battery and getting a charged one back**. Bolding mine. Raw ore is never directly put into Aluminum smelters - there is a fair bit of water and energy intensive processes before the ore gets converted to high grade alumina that gets fed into the smelters (electrolysis). The smelters produce hazardous solid waste that needs to be disposed. The smelters also produce air emissions that need control. Furthermore - the typical installed costs of a smelter is in the 1.5 - 2 billion USD and if the smelter loses power for more than a few hours - the smelters will need to be broken down and built again. The upside to relatively cheap power is quickly lost when you consider all these downsides. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > In the long run, there’s no reason we can’t do the same with fossil fuels. Electrolyze the hydrogen out of water, extract carbon from the atmosphere, and process to form natural gas or whatever. Then ship _that_ to whoever needs it. Expensive, yes… but mainly the energy cost. Drive that down and it might make sense. This sounds like a highschooler talking. Do you understand what this involves ? Here are the steps broken down for you : 1\> Calculate how much energy is needed to separate 1 lb-mole of 99% pure CO2 from atmosphere. 2\> Calculate how much energy is needed to conduct the reverse shift reaction : Co2 + H2 ----\> CO + H2O ? calculate conversion and energy needed to produce 1 lb-mole of CO 3\> Calculate how much energy is needed to produce synthetic natural gas by : CO+H2 —\> CH4 1 lb-mole (consider conversion efficiency). Please also calculate the capex investment for these conversion. If you can calculate these numbers, my guess is that you will quickly see that it does not make sense!! ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/43 "2014-10-02T01:33:05Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > The trend for what ? I see Japan investing big in LNG just like China. I see Spain slapping itself for investing so much in solar. Solar panels getting cheaper does not equate to industries investing in solar power for their needs because there are a lot of other factors to consider such as : reliability of the panels, availability of power, degradation over time, maintenance requirements, etc. Reliability and degradation concerns are just FUD. The panels are reliable and work for long periods of time. Maintenance costs aren’t zero but straightforward to calculate. Availability is the hard problem and the topic of discussion here (of which a supergrid is one possible solution). > [@am77494](#): > > The smelters produce hazardous solid waste that needs to be disposed. The smelters also produce air emissions that need control. And? Smelters pollute no matter where they are. You may as well put them next to the energy. Which is in fact what they do today, except that the energy source is frequently hydroelectric. I simply posit that we’ll see the same effect with solar. > [@am77494](#): > > Furthermore - the typical installed costs of a smelter is in the 1.5 - 2 billion USD and if the smelter loses power for more than a few hours - the smelters will need to be broken down and built again. Not the entire smelter; just the pots. But it’s an engineering problem at any rate. If the smelter loses power, the pots will start to cool. You don’t want them to totally solidify, but you have some time before that happens based on the cooling rate. The cooling rate is dependent on the surface area of the pot, the insulation, etc. You can build a pot that goes for 16 hours if you had to–i.e., if the power was cheap enough to make it worth it. > [@am77494](#): > > If you can calculate these numbers, my guess is that you will quickly see that it does not make sense!! It doesn’t make sense _at current prices_ for CH[sub]4[/sub]. I am not assuming the glut of cheap CH[sub]4[/sub] will last forever, nor that governments will continue to ignore the unpriced externality cost of carbon pollution. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/44 "2014-10-02T01:43:24Z")
LNG is the big disrupter in the renewables and carbon debate. In many ways. Methane has a significantly lower CO[sub]2[/sub] emission per unit energy than coal, and is lower than the other alkanes as well. Replacing coal with LNG would be a massive reduction in global CO[sub]2[/sub] output not to mention the other nice aspects of killing off coal. Also, there is a massive amount of methane in the ground. Now we know how to get it out, and can transport it around the planet at reasonable cost, it starts to compete with renewables in both many ways. IMHO the only viable path is going to be a mix - LNG can be used to take up the load when renewables are not able to - a gas turbine can come on-stream in minutes. It is also a very useful industrial fuel. Lots of LNG actually makes the path to lots of renewable energy easier. However it does compete for investment dollars. But the mid-term mix is viable - renewables when and where you can, and methane powered gas turbines where and when you don’t. Long term - when the methane runs out - is pushed a long way into the future. IMHO coal is dead for everything except steel production. Low rank coal is dead already, it is just that the body keeps twitching. Nuclear is, IMHO, just not going to make it in a big way due to the large mix of forces against it - cost, fear, politics, and the extraordinary lead time. There just won’t be the investment dollars needed to make it be anything other than a niche player. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/45 "2014-10-02T02:24:24Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > One of the biggest problems with solar energy is that it is available only intermittently at any one place on Earth. However, solar energy is always available at _some_ (large) surface on Earth. Another thread asks about (literally) shipping that energy from one place to another, but the more natural question to ask is whether long distance transmission grids can achieve that purpose. If not, what are the (technological/engineering) constraints? Feasibility of exporting renewable energy from Africa to Europe has been considered. The technical requirements are tough, but the blocking problem is considered to be the social and political requirments. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/46 "2014-10-02T02:34:51Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Reliability and degradation concerns are just FUD. The panels are reliable and work for long periods of time. … Please cite references for your claims. Do you even understand that for every pound of aluminum produced by electrolysis at least 1.2 lbs of CO2 is produced ? [QUOTE=Francis Vaughan] IMHO coal is dead for everything except steel production. Low rank coal is dead already, it is just that the body keeps twitching… [/QUOTE] Mr Francis - I humbly disagree. China has been big on coal - from producing power to making plastics and fuels from coal. The biggest Coal to Olefin plants (called CTO or CTX) are in China. The current 5 year plan has massive investments in Coal plant efficiency improvements, Coal to methanol plants (methanol is the commodity chemical for plastics, DME - used for diesel and LPG replacement). I disagree on low rank coal too. Low rank coal is a great feedstock for making SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) and China has a huge investment in this area together with Lurgi / SASOL / Air-Liquide. Until a few years back, I used to do business models for project financing for some of the big players worldwide and have looked at these plays. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/47 "2014-10-02T02:56:04Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > IMHO the only viable path is going to be a mix - LNG can be used to take up the load when renewables are not able to - a gas turbine can come on-stream in minutes. I request you to consider the implications here. On the surface, this appears to be a great solution. Now let us look at the math: Base Case : 1 Gas Turbine Plant generating 100 units of power : Cost of Plant = $100, Cost of fuel for the plant = $365 for 1 year, and maintenance cost = $100 Renewable Case : 1 Solar Powered Plant generating 100 units of power 150 equivalent days in Year : Cost of Plant = $150 (lets take a good case although this can be as high as $200), Cost of fuel for the plant = $0 for 150 equivalent days and maintenance cost = $0 (assume the best case again) 1 Gas Turbine Plant generating 100 units of power : Cost of Plant = $120, Cost of fuel for the plant = $230 for 1 year, and maintenance cost = $200 (Cost of Plant goes up because you want the plant to deliver 100units at the flick of a button and it can only do so in open cycle - not combined cycle mode (gas turbine + steam turbine. Open cycle also means reduced efficiency for the startup period). So the gas turbine needs to be oversized compared to the base case. Also - rotating equipment do not like frequent turning on and off - so maintenance goes up. So the total investment in the Renewable Case is 170% more, Fuel costs go down by ~40% and maintenance costs go up by 100% (we can neglect maintenance costs and just look at the Capex / Opex) So unless this is subsidized (not pure market force driven) - it does not make sense. PS: The costs are made up and are only for comparison ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/48 "2014-10-02T03:29:23Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Mr Francis - I humbly disagree. China has been big on coal - from producing power to making plastics and fuels from coal. The biggest Coal to Olefin plants (called CTO or CTX) are in China. The current 5 year plan has massive investments in Coal plant efficiency improvements, Coal to methanol plants (methanol is the commodity chemical for plastics, DME - used for diesel and LPG replacement). OK, I was disregarding coal as a chemicals feedstock - this is a very real use - but in terms of its effect on the global power market, and indeed market for coal it is very tiny. These uses won’t go away - and apart from DME are not really going to figure in the CO[sub]2[/sub] question. > [@](#): > > I disagree on low rank coal too. Low rank coal is a great feedstock for making SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) and China has a huge investment in this area together with Lurgi / SASOL / Air-Liquide. That is interesting. Question is probably going to be the efficiency and CO[sub]2[/sub] output here. CBM and shale gas may still push this out of contention. But the desire for some level of energy security will always drive things - so cheap LNG will never fully replace these sorts of things. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/49 "2014-10-02T03:32:09Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > So unless this is subsidized (not pure market force driven) - it does not make sense. Agreed. I was implicitly assuming subsidisation. The politics of the situation are becoming ever more dominant. Without subsidisation the renewables would still be in the stone age. But the reality is that we have subsidies - at least for now, and it makes sense to consider things with them. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/50 "2014-10-02T03:39:27Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Please cite references for your claims. Do you even understand that for every pound of aluminum produced by electrolysis at least 1.2 lbs of CO2 is produced ? I don’t know what you’re trying to even dispute here. The claim you quoted was referring to solar panels, which are now known to have high longevity. Manufacturers wouldn’t be guaranteeing them for 25 years otherwise. [Just one example](http://pdf.wholesalesolar.com/module%20pdf%20folder/astronergy_warranty.pdf) of a manufacturer guaranteeing 80%+ power output after 25 years. As for the aluminum thing–you produce the same CO2 output no matter where the plant is located. Plants near expensive energy will close and ones near cheap energy will open to replace them. It’s exactly what’s happening today except that perhaps one day they’ll locate near giant solar installations instead of hydroelectric plants. Moving the smelter is cheaper than building the supergrid. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/51 "2014-10-02T10:35:55Z")
There is a huge investment in LNG ships and terminals connecting the countries with gas fields to a global market of consumers. There is also distribution within and between countries by pipeline and these huge flows of LNG feed power stations. LNG networks have solved the problem of moving fuel for power generation around the world, connecting supplying countries to consuming countries. LNG is seen as a solution to the dependency on Russian gas that perplexes the EU at the moment. LNG terminals and piplelines are seen as an urgent priority. Given that Algeria produces huge amounts of LNG in North Africa, I guess it would take a long time before a supergrid connecting solar panels in the desert is a feasible alternative for supplying the national grids of Europe. I guess supergrids would always be measured against these existing, mature,albeit non-renewable, technologies. I wonder how LNG gas network compare with electricity grids in terms of energy carrying capacity. Obviously they are much slower, but LNG storage tanks are somewhat like a battery, something grids do not have. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/52 "2014-10-02T12:37:34Z")
Distribution around the globe as you imagine it here may be better served by wireless power transmission to orbit then back down after perhaps some bouncing from satellite to satellite. It would also give the option of space based solar power added into the mix, which can have 99% up time. Wireless power would give greater flexibility of where to send/receive power from, greater security against sabotage of the ‘world energy distribution system’ you envision as it would be modular, one station or ‘bird’ goes dark, the rest still goes on, not necessarily so with a broken cable. Efficiencies/loses do not seem that bad at first look compared to the HVDC cable proposed. > **[Space-based solar power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)** > > Space-based solar power (SBSP, SSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in outer space with solar power satellites (SPS) and distributing it to Earth. Its advantages include a higher collection of energy due to the lack of reflection and absorption by the atmosphere, the possibility of very little night, and a better ability to orient to face the sun. Space-based solar power systems convert sunlight to some other form of energy (such as microwaves) which can be transmitted through the atmosp... > **[Microwave transmission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission#Microwave_power_transmission)** > > Microwave transmission is the transmission of information by electromagnetic waves with wavelengths in the microwave frequency range of 300MHz to 300GHz(1 m - 1 mm wavelength) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwave signals are normally limited to the line of sight, so long-distance transmission using these signals requires a series of repeaters forming a microwave relay network. It is possible to use microwave signals in over-the-horizon communications using tropospheric scatter, but such sys... > **[Wireless power transfer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power)** > > Wireless power transfer (WPT), wireless power transmission, wireless energy transmission (WET), or electromagnetic power transfer is the transmission of electrical energy without wires as a physical link. In a wireless power transmission system, a transmitter device, driven by electric power from a power source, generates a time-varying electromagnetic field, which transmits power across space to a receiver device, which extracts power from the field and supplies it to an electrical load. The t... ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/53 "2014-10-02T13:37:54Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > So unless this is subsidized (not pure market force driven) - it does not make sense. > > PS: The costs are made up and are only for comparison As I’ve tried to explain in other threads, the notion of a “pure” market is fundamentally confused. Anyway, [U.S. Federal subsidies for fossil fuels during 2002-2008 totalled $72 billion compared with just $29 billion for “renewable” energy.](http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf) (And half the “renewable” subsidy was for corn-based ethanol, a bad idea.) ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/54 "2014-10-02T13:48:37Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > I wonder how LNG gas network compare with electricity grids in terms of energy carrying capacity. Obviously they are much slower, but LNG storage tanks are somewhat like a battery, something grids do not have. Hmmm, well LNG has an energy density of about 20 MJ/litre (actually a bit more, but close enough). The current big LNG carriers hold up to about 250,000,000 litres. So that is 5x10[sup]15[/sup]J. A useful delivery run might be Darwin to Guangdong, 3121 nm. At 25 knots that will take 5 days. Say two days to load or unload. 14 days round trip. 14 days is 1.2x10[sup]6[/sup] seconds. So the power delivery is 4x10[sup]9[/sup]W. 4 gigawatts. So two of our basic HVDC interconnects. (Not allowing for the losses in the interconnect, which drop it to about 3GW, but also not allowing for inefficiencies in power generation when the LNG arrives - it may of course be used for something other than electricity generation.) An interconnect that ran the same distance would need to run undersea for about 500nm, and could do the rest overland. Say about $3M per nm undersea, and $1M overland. ~$4billion. Over the life of the interconnect you could buy a lot of LNG carriers. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/55 "2014-10-02T17:40:26Z")
Shipping LNG has the advantage that you can go from any terminal to any terminal without putting a line in first, and although the distance limits capacity somewhat (you need more ships) it doesn’t reduce efficiency in a meaningful way. While we’re still burning fossil fuels gas is a the best option because it complements solar and wind well because it can start/stop quickly and the amount of carbon released per unit of energy is relatively low. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/56 "2014-10-02T18:13:23Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > The current big LNG carriers hold up to about 250,000,000 litres. So that is 5x10[sup]15[/sup]J. That’s pretty nuts. You know what else is around 5x10[sup]15[/sup]J? A one-megaton thermonuclear bomb. I guess it can’t go off due to being oxygen-limited, but still… ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/57 "2014-10-02T19:01:58Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > That’s pretty nuts. You know what else is around 5x10[sup]15[/sup]J? A one-megaton thermonuclear bomb. I guess it can’t go off due to being oxygen-limited, but still… I read a thriller book about sabotaging a LNG ship and turning it into a huge fuel air bomb to assassinate the world leaders at a g7 summit. How that worked in the book was really contrived. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/58 "2014-10-02T19:29:13Z")
I guess if you blow up an LNG tanker the main issue is going to be all that liquid methane boiling off and freezing the entire area. The explosion afterwards after reaching the proper air/gas mixture and a surviving idiot lighting a spark would probably only be a secondary consideration. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/59 "2014-10-02T21:43:36Z")
Q: How do you blow up a LNG ship? A: Collide it with a LOx ship. Easy Peasy! ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946/60 "2014-10-03T04:21:20Z")
The biggest LNG power plants seem to be in the 4 to 5Gw range. The japanese one has an 840,000m3 capacity storage. That is about 3 QMax LNG tankers full. > **[Gas-fired – the five biggest natural gas power plants in the world](https://www.power-technology.com/features/featuregas-fired-the-five-biggest-natural-gas-power-plants-in-the-world-4214992/)** > > Japan hosts three of the world’s five biggest natural gas-fired power plants while the other two, including the biggest, are in Russia and Taiwan. Power-technology.com lists the world’s five biggest gas-based power plants based on installed capacity. I guess only a land based Supergrid could compete with this (and sadly no batteries included). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feasibility-of-electric-transmission-over-long-distances/699946.md?page=4)