3 ms·

You mentioned location, but that advantage can't really be understated. How can you have pump storage near every major city? It's not feasible in most places. T

by acchow 9y ago

You mentioned location, but that advantage can't really be understated. How can you have pump storage near every major city? It's not feasible in most places. Then there is the enormous transmission cost to get the energy to (and from) that remote location. Batteries can also meet fluctuations in demand instantly. Hydro cannot.

sanxiyn 9y ago
What enormous transmission cost? Total transmission loss of Australia is 5% (2014). I already said battery switches faster. You are simply repeating what I said.
- labster 9y ago
  Uhm, 5% of national output is a lot of energy. That's not relatively bad or anything, but improvements in transmission would be like getting power plants for free. High-temperature superconductors: I want to believe.
- nl 9y ago
  The Snowy Mountain scheme is around 1500km from Adelaide. It might help in the Eastern States, but transmission losses are significant over that distance, and in the Eastern States they haven't had the power problems yet.
  - zik 9y ago
    Pumped hydro storage is also inefficient - about 20% losses.
mhandley 9y ago
For wind at least, it turns out you want to put the batteries as close to the wind turbines as possible, rather than close to the consumer. The reason is that this evens out the power delivery over the grid. If you put the batteries close to the consumer, the grid from the turbines to consumer must cope with peak generation capacity (powering peak demand, plus charging batteries), whereas if the batteries are close to the turbine the grid only needs to cope with peak wind demand (i.e generation capacity minus battery charging), which is considerably less. Source: from a conversation with someone in high in a major wind power generator.
- acchow 9y ago
  This makes a lot of sense but would never have occurred to me. What are the real-world consequences if you fail to "cope" with demand or generation - increased probability of systemic failure? Something blowing out?

by acchow 9y ago

sanxiyn 9y ago

What enormous transmission cost? Total transmission loss of Australia is 5% (2014). I already said battery switches faster. You are simply repeating what I said.

labster 9y ago
Uhm, 5% of national output is a lot of energy. That's not relatively bad or anything, but improvements in transmission would be like getting power plants for free. High-temperature superconductors: I want to believe.
nl 9y ago
The Snowy Mountain scheme is around 1500km from Adelaide. It might help in the Eastern States, but transmission losses are significant over that distance, and in the Eastern States they haven't had the power problems yet.
- zik 9y ago
  Pumped hydro storage is also inefficient - about 20% losses.

mhandley 9y ago

For wind at least, it turns out you want to put the batteries as close to the wind turbines as possible, rather than close to the consumer. The reason is that this evens out the power delivery over the grid. If you put the batteries close to the consumer, the grid from the turbines to consumer must cope with peak generation capacity (powering peak demand, plus charging batteries), whereas if the batteries are close to the turbine the grid only needs to cope with peak wind demand (i.e generation capacity minus battery charging), which is considerably less. Source: from a conversation with someone in high in a major wind power generator.

acchow 9y ago
This makes a lot of sense but would never have occurred to me. What are the real-world consequences if you fail to "cope" with demand or generation - increased probability of systemic failure? Something blowing out?