That wasn't the topic. At issue is whether putting storage at one end or other of a massive transmission line makes any difference. Storage at the receiving end of a transmission line will be extremely common, worldwide, because a transmission line is the conventional backup for local storage, and is also how you top up local storage during supply peaks when you haven't got a local surplus.
In fact, as this particular transmission line will be feeding into the UK national grid, its normal role will be backup for offshore wind.
That somebody else at the end of a different transmission line might want access to the battery would be a good reason to site it where those lines meet. Another might be that you need to minimize fluctuations on power going through your transmission line. But whatever the reasons, they certainly will not be trivial, and might be revelatory. Trivially dismissing the question adds no light.
> Storage at the receiving end of a transmission line
Require vast investments to add the capacity to handle storage and would be less efficient.
Your proposal is basically to spend 20% to 30% more money, loses and extra 4-7% electricity every charge discharge cycle and gains effectively nothing which is why nobody is doing it.
> how you top up local storage during supply peaks when you haven't got a local surplus.
Peak + filling storage requires extra transmission capacity which costs money to build and energy to use.
> At the end of a different transmission line.
Transmission lines work in either direction and are generally set up as an interconnected mesh. You want redundancy from the solar power plant to customers, but you also want redundancy from batteries to customers.
O I read it, it’s just clear you don’t understand the topic at all. Which makes picking just a few things to correct hard.
Ex: “you need to minimize fluctuations on power going through your transmission line.” That sounds reasonable, yes you need to maintain grid frequency etc, but it’s got almost nothing to do with transmission lines. Further there is equipment to deal with various transitory issues that is much cheaper than a giant battery + required equipment to connect those batteries to the electric grid.
HVDC lines are still relatively rare, most transmission lines do have “grid frequency” as converting to HVDC has significant losses. Of course there is equipment to match frequencies, even for Japan’s 50 vs 60hz system, but again it costs money and lowers efficiency.
Rare enough to make the news should be a freaking hint that something unusual is going on even if you know nothing about he topic. But, in case you where actually confused underwater HVDC cables are far from the norm, which is why people are commenting on it.
As to the topic, if you want to bring up unrelated and experimental storage technology then don’t pretend to be “shocked” that the topic expands.
