3 ms·

Which one is cheaper to build and operate: Pumped hydro or batteries?

vasco 8y ago
In a lot of places pumped hydro is at capacity. There's only so many rivers, but you can generally put batteries anywhere.
- tripletao 8y ago
  Also not directly comparable, since the batteries respond near-instantly but pumped hydro still has some lag.
- jaddood 8y ago
  You don't really need a river to pump hydro up and down. As long as you have some kind of container for the water (usually a dam though not necessarily so,) you can pump any water. The cheapest to pump is probably sea water. I'm not really sure how cheap that would be compared to batteries, but it's still an option.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    To make it cost-effective, you need a height advantage and a "natural" container. The ideal sites are mountaintop lakes. It's a fairly rare topography.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      Could be a dry lake tho, no? Are those rare?
_nalply 8y ago
I forgot to add: in Switzerland. Switzerland is big on pumped hydro. Is pumped hydro in Switzerland cheaper than batteries?
ggm 8y ago
Batteries have instant response but shorter duration. Batteries can be distributed so provide ancillary functions like local-only service gap filling, load balance in the net. Batteries are very efficient with lower losses through the charge-discharge cycle. Pumped Hydro have huge capital work costs and sit behind transmission system barriers often, but they can go on and on and on. They have a startup delay component. They have lower overall efficiency because of pump losses (don't over cost this, often the power used is marginal, or was going to waste anyway) So whilst its a valid Question as written, it is a bit apples and bicycles comparison: they don't actually "equal" each other in how they respond, and for how long, and what associated outcomes are alongside. I believe the Turnbull Snowy pumped Hydro is $2b+ of cost to dig new tunnels and is 5+ years off. the same investment at current prices ($150m for the neoen stack) means TEN of them could be deployed at the rate Tesla can supply batteries, inside the five year window. Arguably better use of the money but the $2b gives a huge amount more sustained power.

In a lot of places pumped hydro is at capacity. There's only so many rivers, but you can generally put batteries anywhere.

tripletao 8y ago
Also not directly comparable, since the batteries respond near-instantly but pumped hydro still has some lag.
jaddood 8y ago
You don't really need a river to pump hydro up and down. As long as you have some kind of container for the water (usually a dam though not necessarily so,) you can pump any water. The cheapest to pump is probably sea water. I'm not really sure how cheap that would be compared to batteries, but it's still an option.
- pjc50 8y ago
  To make it cost-effective, you need a height advantage and a "natural" container. The ideal sites are mountaintop lakes. It's a fairly rare topography.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Could be a dry lake tho, no? Are those rare?

_nalply 8y ago

I forgot to add: in Switzerland. Switzerland is big on pumped hydro. Is pumped hydro in Switzerland cheaper than batteries?

ggm 8y ago

Batteries have instant response but shorter duration. Batteries can be distributed so provide ancillary functions like local-only service gap filling, load balance in the net. Batteries are very efficient with lower losses through the charge-discharge cycle. Pumped Hydro have huge capital work costs and sit behind transmission system barriers often, but they can go on and on and on. They have a startup delay component. They have lower overall efficiency because of pump losses (don't over cost this, often the power used is marginal, or was going to waste anyway) So whilst its a valid Question as written, it is a bit apples and bicycles comparison: they don't actually "equal" each other in how they respond, and for how long, and what associated outcomes are alongside. I believe the Turnbull Snowy pumped Hydro is $2b+ of cost to dig new tunnels and is 5+ years off. the same investment at current prices ($150m for the neoen stack) means TEN of them could be deployed at the rate Tesla can supply batteries, inside the five year window. Arguably better use of the money but the $2b gives a huge amount more sustained power.