You literally didn't read the first paragraph of the linked article, did you?
Aside from engineering feasibility, this is literally what bit Europe (Northern Europe in particular - go figure) in the backside: having a single energy supplier. Projects like this sound like nice marginal improvements, but you wouldn't want to bet your whole economy on good relations with Morocco.
It is on fact worse since oil and gas can be transported with some difficulty, Germany muddled through in the end. But you won't be able to magic out new cables at this scale. And anyway where would they lead?
I think the bulk of energy must at least be produced in the EU, with all the limitations it entails. Or else be fungible with many third parties.
> Power delivered by the ‘GREGY Interconnection’ cable will serve grids in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria.
The comment:
> what is going to power Northern Europe in winter?
You literally didn't read the first sentence of the comment, did you?
Extending those to Northern Europe doesn't take that much imagination.
You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics.
The Nordic grid is separate from the Central European grid and interconnection capacity is limited.
Time to let your imagination fly. What’s your solution?
Sure, that makes it easier, not harder. Interconnection capacity can be expanded. The Nordic grid is already connected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Northern_E... ; 11 interconnections are listed), just not synchronized; they can and do exchange power just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid details all sorts of proposals in this regard, some of them currently being implemented. Like I said, not much imagination necessary; others have already gotten it well past that point.
Tell that to the folks actually building these transmission networks.
Sure. Finland is adding an additional 1000 MW of capacity to Estonia. It's expected to be ready for service in 2035.
In case you didn't notice, that's less than a nuclear power plants worth of interconnection capacity in a decade.
That page is little much than fancy hand waving. What's more amusing is that you can also find the summary of a study from Finnish engineering firm Pöyry on the very same page that concludes the following:
> some of them currently being implemented.
Which ones? Specifically which ones will add the required tens of GWs of interconnection capacity?
That's putting it charitably. You need a rather large leap of faith from those hallucinations to a real solution.I suspect they'll agree that overland transmission lines are far easier to build than undersea lines. (As long as you're not trying to do it in, say, Afghanistan.)
> While it found that spreading renewables across Europe produced a smoothing effect, large scale weather patterns would impact many European countries at similar times.
Yes, that's why building and interconnecting with solar farms in Northern Africa is being discussed.
> In case you didn't notice, that's less than a nuclear power plants worth of interconnection capacity in a decade.
One would presume they build according to actual need. It's pretty clear future capacity expansion of proven technology will be needed as use of renewables expands.