MP

Building A $2 Billion Subsea Solar Power Cable From Chile To China

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

It is still Transparency International's index. Which uses some entirely non-transparent mechanism demonstrating less corruption for Ukraine and various -stans of former USSR than for Russia itself. Which cannot be.

Now, look at this

https://www.transparency.org/en/the-organisation/who-supports-us

So, they are getting funded by the very same countries who surprise, surprise, end up ranked highest in their list. I rest my case.

World Data comes from the World Bank> I am curious how you cane up with a link to Transparency Int. and World Data. Is it a credible source? Corruption in Belarus  and several of the  mid Asian republics I believe you.  Having been on the edge of the Cypess banking disaster, I believe Russian oligarchs lost more money than the rest of the depositors combined. Tha tand some of he criminal cases and litigation over ownership of several Russian Oil companies where western share holders were defrauded and are still suing means that there is not enough money in the Ukraine to match the level of fraud in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 minutes ago, nsdp said:

World Data comes from the World Bank> I am curious how you cane up with a link to Transparency Int. and World Data. Is it a credible source? Corruption in Belarus  and several of the  mid Asian republics I believe you.  Having been on the edge of the Cypess banking disaster, I believe Russian oligarchs lost more money than the rest of the depositors combined. Tha tand some of he criminal cases and litigation over ownership of several Russian Oil companies where western share holders were defrauded and are still suing means that there is not enough money in the Ukraine to match the level of fraud in Russia.

It says it right there,  "The index is published annually by Transparency International."

Which is as non-transparent and corrupt a Western NGO as they come. The whole practice of obfuscating organizations which are pretty much (inter)government agencies as charitable NGOs is corrupt.

There is no corruption in Belarus for the same reason there isn't really any in DPRK, even though Transparency tends to rank them one of the last. It is a police state, where private business plays a secondary role.

In Cyprus, the EU shaved all the banking deposits by some 15% A highway robbery. Ever since, is de-offshorization of Russian business is an ongoing process. The "oligarch" class realized that the only place where they can hide from major governments of the EU and US is at home, in Russia.

You mean Yukos' suit for $50 bln? Another BS case. Those aren't really "Western shareholders," but largely Khodorkovsky's interests held in escrow by the Rothshilds.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

It is still Transparency International's index. Which uses some entirely non-transparent mechanism demonstrating less corruption for Ukraine and various -stans of former USSR than for Russia itself. Which cannot be.

Now, look at this

https://www.transparency.org/en/the-organisation/who-supports-us

So, they are getting funded by the very same countries who surprise, surprise, end up ranked highest their list. I rest my case.

Andre you are so full of CACA it is laughable.  World Data is financed by the World Bank and IMF only.   Show me how either one enters Transparency 's list of funders.  Under the US Constitution the World bank is not a part of the US Government unlike the State dept which does contribute. If you do a Lexis Nexis search of the United States you will find tha tthere are no entries for the World Bank. It is an organization created by treaty same as the organization of American States, the International Bank of Settlements m the UN and the IMF to name a few.   I am aware of biases in Transparency.  That is why I do not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Andre you are so full of CACA it is laughable.  World Data is financed by the World Bank and IMF only.   Show me how either one enters Transparency 's list of funders.  Under the US Constitution the World bank is not a part of the US Government unlike the State dept which does contribute. If you do a Lexis Nexis search of the United States you will find tha tthere are no entries for the World Bank. It is an organization created by treaty same as the organization of American States, the International Bank of Settlements m the UN and the IMF to name a few.   I am aware of biases in Transparency.  That is why I do not use it.

Damn it, would you read your own link already? At the very top

https://www.worlddata.info/corruption.php

on the blue field it credits Transparency International the first time, and than some more after the table.

The "Washington Consensus" institutions (WTO, IMF and World Bank) are set up differently than UN. USA has the sole veto power there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre you are very obviously ignorant of the relationship between  World Data and Transparency.  The later uses World Data's collection of data along with other sources to calculate their rating.   World Data creates their own "Corruption Perceptions Index" through the University of Passau wiithout regrd to transparency. .   That uses an entirely different methodology that the Ratings .  You are trying to argue black is white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

20 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Damn it, would you read your own link already? At the very top

https://www.worlddata.info/corruption.php

on the blue field it credits Transparency International the first time, and than some more after the table.

The "Washington Consensus" institutions (WTO, IMF and World Bank) are set up differently than UN. USA has the sole veto power there :)

We do not  have veto power or even a vote at the IMF, where did you get that BS as that is an absolutely ignorant claim . That belongs to the EU . WTO has no veto by any nation where did you get that information. Pravda?.  I note you leave out the entire rest of the two paragraphs  and you have IGNORED the University of Passau who prepares  the " "Corruption Perceptions Index"  for the World Bank the IMF and it is published by World Data. A courtesy copy is given to Transparency who uses it along with other data.   If you weren't blind in one eye and not able to see out of the other you would see differences in rating after the first twenty.

Why did you omit the work of the University of Passau?

Edited by nsdp
forgot question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, nsdp said:

We do not  have veto power or even a vote at the IMF, where did you get that BS as that is an absolutely ignorant claim . That belongs to the EU . WTO has no veto by any nation where did you get that information. Pravda?.  I note you leave out the entire rest of the two paragraphs  and you have IGNORED the University of Passau who prepares  the " "Corruption Perceptions Index"  for the World Bank the IMF and it is published by World Data. A courtesy copy is given to Transparency who uses it along with other data.   If you weren't blind in one eye and not able to see out of the other you would see differences in rating after the first twenty.

IMF is not part of the EU. There is merely an informal tradition for its MD to be a European citizen, while World Bank President is always an American one.

My claim of US veto arises from observation that organization's bylaws require 85% supermajority shareholder vote to move. This much is impossible to obtain without the US, which owns just under 17% share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_Group#Organizational_structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund#US_influence_and_voting_reform

The original

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

is a Transparency baby. Yes, technically it is compiled by some University of Passau academician, based on sociological surveys. Therefore, "perception" is the key word, instead of actual "corruption" as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, nsdp said:

We do not  have veto power or even a vote at the IMF, where did you get that BS as that is an absolutely ignorant claim . That belongs to the EU . WTO has no veto by any nation where did you get that information. Pravda?.  I note you leave out the entire rest of the two paragraphs  and you have IGNORED the University of Passau who prepares  the " "Corruption Perceptions Index"  for the World Bank the IMF and it is published by World Data. A courtesy copy is given to Transparency who uses it along with other data.   If you weren't blind in one eye and not able to see out of the other you would see differences in rating after the first twenty.

Why did you omit the work of the University of Passau?

Actually, Wiki says the original U. Passau author quit in 2009 amidst internal protests. No wonder, with it being a shameless Washington Politbiro operation now.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/corrupting-perceptions-why-transparency-international’s-flagship-corruption-index-falls-short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

There is a rail link to Tibet now.

Stop confusing him with facts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nsdp said:

Nick you are genuinely ignorant. What made that project so expensive is something in physics ( did you pass physics  in school?) was called the Carrington Effect. This requires land based facilities north of 35 degrees latitude to have special protective gear.  Solar storms can cause power grids to fail at lower latitudes https://earthsky.org/human-world/solar-storms-can-cause-power-grids-to-fail-at-lower-latitudes/ As Jackie Gleason used to say "What a Maroon"  costs are not comparable.

 

Second you will need as more miles of cable for three phase AC from Tibet or Xinjang as the project from Chile. Are you smart enough to know why?   You have to have three phase have three phase conductors plus overhead shield wire on each side of the tower. You will need a steel tower every 100 meters to maintain ground clearance for safety. Due to load carrying capacity in air and structural strength limits , you will need to use two 345kv circuits as the under water cable is larger in diameter, has lower I*2R losses and less solar heating and  does not suffer from weight limits that the towers can support.  So you wind up using twice as much cable  and the added expense  for 40 ,000 transmission towers at $300,000 US each.  You could use 500 or 768kv but that doubles the number of towers needed.    Substations and the Inverter stations  will be approximately equal since the point in Chile is 20 degrees South latitude  and the route for the underwater cable lies and the termination in China lies within 30 degrees of the equator so no extra cost for protection against the Carrington Effect. 

Why not use HVDC then?

Steel tower every 100m???? Multiply that by 4-5 to give a realistic figure for HV systems

Steel and Aluminium are a lot cheaper and readily available than copper. 

Like I said - let us know when they start laying this TP cable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nsdp said:

Nick you are genuinely ignorant. What made that project so expensive is something in physics ( did you pass physics  in school?) was called the Carrington Effect. This requires land based facilities north of 35 degrees latitude to have special protective gear.  Solar storms can cause power grids to fail at lower latitudes https://earthsky.org/human-world/solar-storms-can-cause-power-grids-to-fail-at-lower-latitudes/ As Jackie Gleason used to say "What a Maroon"  costs are not comparable.

 

Second you will need as more miles of cable for three phase AC from Tibet or Xinjang as the project from Chile. Are you smart enough to know why?   You have to have three phase have three phase conductors plus overhead shield wire on each side of the tower. You will need a steel tower every 100 meters to maintain ground clearance for safety. Due to load carrying capacity in air and structural strength limits , you will need to use two 345kv circuits as the under water cable is larger in diameter, has lower I*2R losses and less solar heating and  does not suffer from weight limits that the towers can support.  So you wind up using twice as much cable  and the added expense  for 40 ,000 transmission towers at $300,000 US each.  You could use 500 or 768kv but that doubles the number of towers needed.    Substations and the Inverter stations  will be approximately equal since the point in Chile is 20 degrees South latitude  and the route for the underwater cable lies and the termination in China lies within 30 degrees of the equator so no extra cost for protection against the Carrington Effect. 

There are already dams in southern Tibet that I assume transmit power in an eastbound direction. I assume if these are not fully utilised then they could be hooked into for tibetan solar & wind. 

Zangmu Dam - Wikipedia

However,  clearly if building transmission lines for hydro in this region is feasible it will also be feasible for wind and solar deployments. 

The stranded assets are simply a product of poor planning and not getting the transmission infrastructure built before or along side the generating plant construction. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.