Talk:SuperGrid (hydrogen)

Split

This stub needs to be two different stubs in my opinion. The two different "supergrids" being described are entirely different things. I'd intended to wikilink super grid from Intermittent Power Sources but have chosen not to do so because I don't want the reader to think that the former article is discussing a hydrogen distribution system. Mishlai (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there isn't much material (yet) about either proposed SuperGrid, I went ahead and added the link from Intermittent Power Sources. There was also a link from {{Electricity generation}} which is now a navigation template in several article in the topic of electricity generation and transmission. I think it would be clear enough, for the time being, to edit the article to disambiguate the two SuperGrids in one article. The hydrogen scheme is almost certainly farther in the future than the HVDC-only scheme, so that would be the SuperGrid to list first. I'll see what I can do with a slight rearrangement, without removing any content. If one or both SuperGrids actually get built, then more material would likely accumulate about them, and splitting the article would be appropriate. Just my opinion. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we might be out on a limb here anyway. Separate articles might move us farther out on the limb. --Teratornis (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I might add that there are similar proposals to modernize the electricity distribution grid in the United States, to link up wind farms in the Great Plains and photovoltaic power stations in the Southwestern United States with electricity consumers in the rest of the U.S., although I don't know yet whether the U.S. proponents are using the term "SuperGrid". They might as well, since it's very similar to what the Europeans are discussing. --Teratornis (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the source article:

• Grant, Paul M. (2006). "A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy". Scientific American. Retrieved 2008-10-24. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

and even though it describes a combined electricity and liquified-hydrogen distribution grid, it applies at least as much as the "conventional" (nonsuperconducting) HVDC SuperGrid when it comes to solving the problem of intermittent power sources by linking sources of renewable power from different geographic regions, time zones, and weather regimes. The superconducting SuperGrid would have even more ability to buffer intermittency through its liquid hydrogen energy storage capacity. --Teratornis (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a need to split this article and intend to do so. They are entirely different senses. HVDC and the liquid hydrogen superconducting "supergrid" concepts are technologies. The other idea is not a technology but a kind of public works infrastructure: the Euro Super grid, the US's bulk transmission national grid popularized by Obama and Pickens, and China's 800KV bulk transmission mega projects. James E. Hansen recently pointed out in congressional testimony that these bulk transmission grids are crucial to the success of international goals of energy independence and combatting global warming, so clearly the article will have a great deal of attention and importance to WP readers. -Mak (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "super grid" or supergrid is prevalent in the press to refer not to the hydrogen concept, but the generic concept of long haul continental inter grid connections via existing technologies like HVDC. I suggest this article be renamed SuperGrid (hydrogen) and that the generic electricity transmission concept be discussed in the "super grid" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak Thorpe (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commas, commas, everywhere,

This article is unreadable. Someone went insane with the comma. 2A02:C7F:4C3B:3F00:9C07:B48F:2515:ED45 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)