Lower capital costs might encourage the government to do something daring, like installing a superconductor line from East to West.You can tell what the press agents have to sell by the energy story of the week. A while ago it was small modular nuclear reactors, a promising technology that has so far produced more news stories than reactors. Then came carbon sequestration: burn whatever you want but stick the carbon somewhere.
Now for the problem, certainly common to Europe, North America and Australia. Getting the line from announcement to completion can take 5-10 years. People don’t want their views spoiled. They don’t want the lines underwater because the project might stir up the bottom.
This situation leads to three questions. First, if building transmission the standard way is so difficult, what about looking at alternatives? Maybe undergrounding, or direct current, or an indirect route or even superconductors? Well, the standard answer is those are more expensive that the standard line. But does that make sense? More expensive than the standard line that you cannot build?