Now that we have efficient DC operated devices that can easily convert power formats the lack of technology that initially resulted in AC domination of long distance transmission of power is being offset but there is still a huge infrastructure of AC distribution worldwide that won't be replaced anytime soon.Ironically now the method for long distance transmission lines is to use DC!
We do it here to save a lot of $$ losses $$.
Max.
If you need high power long-distance bulk transfer between two points it's great but active converter stations are still more expensive than passive AC transformers so you still need to build out an intermediary AC sub-system at transfer nodes. DC is now a true complement to AC systems rather than a rival today. Using DC to decouple large AC synchronous grids (to eliminate frequency or phase angle issues) with back to back converters is also common.I think that any new installations that require a long distance transmission are going to consider DC, there are incredible savings to be had, with the loss of one conductor and the much reduced losses.
Max.
The original conversion was done with Thyratron and Ignitron tubes, now solid state.The solid state cost is sure to decline......the transformer might become a specialty item.
Ironically now the method for long distance transmission lines is to use DC!
We do it here to save a lot of $$ losses $$.
Max.
Yes. going from 6% to 3.5 % is 30% - 40% savings but in reality it's not much of a gain in overall system efficiency. Its just fudging numbers like saying a 98 % efficient transformer is 300% more efficient than a 92% efficient transformer because efficiency values were improved by a factor of 3 rather than saying a 6% improvement in losses were had. A 300% improvement sounds way more impressive than a 6% one yet they both mean the same thing.The report from Siemens is that the saving for the new HVDC 1,400Km 2300Mw line will offers saving between 30% to 40%.
In engineering speak we call this the point of deminishing returns - but thanks for the math.Yes. going from 6% to 3.5 % is 30% - 40% savings but in reality it's not much of a gain in overall system efficiency. Its just fudging numbers like saying a 98 % efficient transformer is 300% more efficient than a 92% efficient transformer because efficiency values were improved by a factor of 3 rather than saying a 6% improvement in losses were had. A 300% improvement sounds way more impressive than a 6% one yet they both mean the same thing.
Its the same numbers games vehicle emissions improvements claims are based on. An 80% improvement on something great but a 80% improvement on the remaining 20% isn't so much of a gain and a 80% improvement on the remaining 20% of the second 20% is very small compared to the actual original value yet by all percentages measurements they all sound like huge gains to a person who has not sat down and did the numbers.
100 - (80% of 100) = 20
20 - (80% of 20) = 4
4 - (80% of 4) = .8
You follow what I am saying?
It is generated in the usual way (AC) the conversion takes place either end.Now I'm wondering just how do you generate DC? I've always thought you need to generate AC then convert it to DC. Saving on line losses and reduction in the amount of copper needed - well, I'm still trying to understand all that - - - and I'm not asking for an explanation here.
That explains why DC is just beginning to catch up until recent years...With DC transmission the AC power from the generation is boosted to the HVDC levels by converters using semiconductor technology
by Duane Benson
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman