A bold plan takes shape to build the world's largest subsea energy interconnector

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 584   +13
Staff
Why it matters: Given the number of proposals to move solar and wind energy between countries, subsea transmission of renewable energy is becoming mainstream. The latest ambitious proposition is a subsea energy interconnector between Europe and North America. Considering the number of countries involved, it will take a high degree of technical expertise and geopolitical finesse to pull off. However, hopes are high that it can happen.

A group of entrepreneurs is proposing to build the world's largest subsea energy interconnector, linking Europe and North America with three pairs of high-voltage cables. The connection would transport renewable energy back and forth between continents, taking advantage of the sun's daily migration across the sky.

"When the sun is at its zenith, we probably have more power in Europe than we can really use," said Simon Ludlam, founder and CEO of Etchea Energy and one of the three Europeans leading the project. "We've got wind and we've also got too much solar. That's a good time to send it to a demand center, like the East Coast of the United States."

It is one of a growing number of global endeavors that seek to ship renewable energy by sea cable. A project called Sun Cable wants to send solar power from Australia to Singapore, which has little room for solar farms.

Another example is the joint venture between India and Saudi Arabia, which plans to connect their power grids under the Arabian Sea. There are also proposals for an undersea cable system to bring 3.6 GW of wind and solar energy from Morocco to the UK. This project could supply about eight percent of Britain's power needs.

These projects are not just pipe dreams. The North Sea Link already connects the UK with Norway, allowing the exchange of wind and hydropower between the two countries. Even longer cables are planned between the UK and Iceland and between the solar farms in Azerbaijan and Hungary, where a 1,100-km cable passes on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Subsea power cables are critical to these endeavors. They are crucial technology for transporting renewable energy across long distances under the oceans. Subsea cables allow plants to transmit renewable energy over vast distances, often connecting remote offshore wind farms or solar installations to population centers.

The demand for this technology is so strong that the submarine power cable market could surpass $32.86 billion by 2032 with a compound annual growth rate of 8.5 percent. As a frame of reference, analysts had the market pegged at $14.6 billion in 2022.

The project that Ludlam and his colleagues are proposing would use cables stretching more than 2,000 miles across the entire floor of the Atlantic Ocean to connect the UK's west with eastern Canada and potentially New York with western France.

According to renewable energy firm Megawatt-X founder Laurent Segalen, these cables could send six gigawatts of energy in both directions at the speed of light – the equivalent of six large-scale nuclear power plants transmitting energy in near real-time.

The group knows that the ambitious project will need buy-in from several countries and a significant sum of money, making the most optimistic timeline for construction the mid-2030s. However, the coalition is determined to get it done.

Permalink to story:

 
It was about time.
Japanese should know how to do it, they have incompatible interconnected systems on west coast and east coast of Japan.
 
And we know the Australian-Singapore link had the major financier pull out.

Interesting idea, but with so many issues, geopolitical and technical it would be safer to onshore all your energy needs.
 
Of course, depending on which direction the energy is flowing I would like to see a BIG OFF switch .....
 
How much energy loss is there transporting energy that long of a distance?
An exact figure would depend on the operating voltage chosen. An aerial HVDC link that length would generally lose a little less than 20%, plus 3-4% for the end conversion. But a submarine cable might choose a lower voltage (higher loss) to allow cheaper construction costs.

The real issue is cost, of course. For the price of this project, you could build 10 nuclear power plants, each of them pumping out gigawatts of clean, reliable electricity -- and all of them working 100% of the time. The problem with this link is that it forgets that, Europe and North America are -both- in the dark for several hours each day.
 
An exact figure would depend on the operating voltage chosen. An aerial HVDC link that length would generally lose a little less than 20%, plus 3-4% for the end conversion. But a submarine cable might choose a lower voltage (higher loss) to allow cheaper construction costs.

The real issue is cost, of course. For the price of this project, you could build 10 nuclear power plants, each of them pumping out gigawatts of clean, reliable electricity -- and all of them working 100% of the time. The problem with this link is that it forgets that, Europe and North America are -both- in the dark for several hours each day.
thanks! And I agree nuclear is the way to go and would make more sense than this project
 
The article very clearly states several times that this is a planned *subsea* interconnector. As in, it runs under the sea. It's not on the sea floor.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Interconnector.gif
The term "subsea" merely means below the surface of the ocean. Your link is for the Nemo cable, which is less than 1/20 the length and in far shallower waters. The North Atlantic has trenches more than 20,000 feet deep -- they're certainly not burying a cable across the entire distance.
 
The term "subsea" merely means below the surface of the ocean. Your link is for the Nemo cable, which is less than 1/20 the length and in far shallower waters. The North Atlantic has trenches more than 20,000 feet deep -- they're certainly not burying a cable across the entire distance.

Hmm. Then they're right, this is going to be quite an attractive target during times of excess demand, especially considering the length involved (which is essentially unpatrollable) and the cost of sending someone out to fix it.
 
thanks! And I agree nuclear is the way to go and would make more sense than this project
The problem is that in some places you just can't build nuclear plants so being able to buy your power from someplace that has extra is alot cheaper and keeps your costs down when you don't need to buy the extra power.
 
The problem is that in some places you just can't build nuclear plants so being able to buy your power from someplace that has extra is alot cheaper and keeps your costs down when you don't need to buy the extra power.
This plan involves building a power line from one place that can and does build nuclear plants to another place that does. And there is nothing 'cheap' about this project -- it will cost as much as 10-12 large nuclear reactors, yet produce no power whatsoever on its own. Meaning that you've added the costs of all those (non-built) reactors to the production costs of the mere 6GW of electricity it does carry. Electricity carried on this line will cost several times as much as that produced locally, even without considering the 25-30% line losses.
 
Back