Contents

Talk:North Sea Link

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Move to NSN Link

[edit]

Given the text of today's announcement, I propose to move the page from "HVDC Norway-Great Britain" to "NSN Link", unless anyone wishes to discuss it first. Hallucegenia (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nordpool archive does not seem to work, only showing current price, not past. Maybe it's different for yearly than hourly, so I suggest we let it be until next year to see what it does... . Preferably, a more stable source should be found. TGCP (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I also have concerns about this data being added to the article, especially as a comparison to Hinkley Point. Firstly there is no source to say that the NSN will give access to the Nord Pool Spot, nor that the price will be the same as it is currently. The Hinkley Point comparison seems unnecessary without a secondary source, it seems to be more of an attack on Hinkley Point. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify; I added the archive because the page is likely to change over time. However, it shows many past years, and will probably show 2015 price for a long time. So it may not matter if the archive doesn't work.

As Statnett is operator, it is highly likely (although unconfirmed) that NO2 price will be used for payment calculation in both directions. The situation is less clear for NorthConnect. As for HPC, wp:synth comes to mind. TGCP (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to remove the whole current economy section. It is clear that the cable will grant a physical access for the market participants in both markets but taking account the fact that the opening is planned for 2021, all references to prices etc are premature and may still raise the WP:SYNTH and even WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Probably there are sources which can provide information about the economic impact of this particular link without these concerns. Beagel (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I will delete it unless a better source is provided. There is a similar discussion going on at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station#Quoting a single number from a WP:PRIMARY (twice) is not WP:OR where the same editor has posted a comparison to the current prices. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the name of the project is North Sea Link (abbr: NSL) and NSN Link is not in use anymore, except in the project's website address. I propose to move this page to North Sea Link. Beagel (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no comments, I will make the move. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion that the annual transmission capacity is 2.3 TWh is arithmetically correct but not necessarily in practice. The precondition for this is that electricity could be transferred only in one way, not in both ways. It is because of the fact that it is possible that at the same time there may be sellers in Norway selling to the UK and there are sellers in the UK selling to Norway. E.g., there may be hours when Norwegian sellers would like to sell 1.4GWh to the UK and the UK sellers would like to sell 1.4GWH to Norway. In practice that means that the trade volume for this certain hour is 2.8GWH but there is no physical transfer of electricity at all. That kind of situation is quite usual with other interconnectors and it is caused by different type of prices in different contracts. Not all electricity is traded by spot prices and most of it is sold under long term contracts. Beagel (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stated annual transmission capacity is the maximum. And it is true that it can reached as a sum of a transmission in one direction and a transmission in the other direction. In that case the net transfer will be lower, possibly zero. But the actual, maximum transmission remains at 12.3 TWh (which I assume is what you mean above, as opposed to 2.3 TWh). We have two sources that mention scenarios in which the maximum annual capacity is reached in one direction (from Norway to UK in 2020). Feel to elaborate on this in the article. Also, some of these general considerations regarding interconnectors could be made on that page. Lklundin (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]