3 ms·

Does anyone know the relative efficiency of, say, pumped hydro or lithium battery storage vs, say, a 1000km transmission line? I'm curious how local storage st

Does anyone know the relative efficiency of, say, pumped hydro or lithium battery storage vs, say, a 1000km transmission line? I'm curious how local storage stacks up against something like sending solar power half way around the globe.

patall 5y ago
The one from Norway to the Netherlands has supposedly 95.8% efficiency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
g105b 5y ago
I don't think it's about the efficiency, it's about managing waste. Currently, a lot of hydro generation is wasted at nighttime because there is less demand, so it's burnt off. Even if inefficient, it would be better to shift this energy to somewhere where it isn't night time
maxerickson 5y ago
The loss from 1000 Km of transmission is probably comparable to the loss from good case lithium ion (making transmission better much of the time). Pumped hydro is worse than both. Pumped hydro is usually built when it will directly reduce overall grid costs. For example, the Ludington Pumped Storage plant in Michigan was built by utilities to make their generation more cost efficient overall, the energy efficiency of the storage system only needs to be good enough to accomplish that goal.
PeterisP 5y ago
Modern pumped hydro gets about 80% round-trip efficiency, perhaps 75% for older plants get 75%. Interestingly, grid scale batteries seem to get something close to that, 80-85 percent - I would have expected more. Transmission losses for 1000km are something like 2%-3%. So halfway around the globe isn't efficient, but 1000km might as well be considered "local" and transferring across the whole EU would be more efficient than local storage.
- legulere 5y ago
  Halfway around the globe is 20 000 km. Which would be (0.97^20)–(0.98^2)) = 54–66% efficiency. Not good, but still better than what I expected.
gilbetron 5y ago
Looks like the high-voltage transmission lines are very efficient, losing only a few percent over hundreds of miles: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-... There's a good watch on pumped hydro, and how it is kinda sucky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg Battery storage is the most likely thing, although there is also kinetic storage (flywheels) and some other ideas as well (ultracapacitors, for instance).
bryanlarsen 5y ago
HVDC is crazy expensive. Solar and batteries are cheap. Local production and storage generally wins. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-electricity-is-local/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...

patall 5y ago

The one from Norway to the Netherlands has supposedly 95.8% efficiency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

g105b 5y ago

I don't think it's about the efficiency, it's about managing waste. Currently, a lot of hydro generation is wasted at nighttime because there is less demand, so it's burnt off. Even if inefficient, it would be better to shift this energy to somewhere where it isn't night time

maxerickson 5y ago

The loss from 1000 Km of transmission is probably comparable to the loss from good case lithium ion (making transmission better much of the time). Pumped hydro is worse than both. Pumped hydro is usually built when it will directly reduce overall grid costs. For example, the Ludington Pumped Storage plant in Michigan was built by utilities to make their generation more cost efficient overall, the energy efficiency of the storage system only needs to be good enough to accomplish that goal.

PeterisP 5y ago

Modern pumped hydro gets about 80% round-trip efficiency, perhaps 75% for older plants get 75%. Interestingly, grid scale batteries seem to get something close to that, 80-85 percent - I would have expected more. Transmission losses for 1000km are something like 2%-3%. So halfway around the globe isn't efficient, but 1000km might as well be considered "local" and transferring across the whole EU would be more efficient than local storage.

legulere 5y ago
Halfway around the globe is 20 000 km. Which would be (0.97^20)–(0.98^2)) = 54–66% efficiency. Not good, but still better than what I expected.

gilbetron 5y ago

Looks like the high-voltage transmission lines are very efficient, losing only a few percent over hundreds of miles: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-... There's a good watch on pumped hydro, and how it is kinda sucky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg Battery storage is the most likely thing, although there is also kinetic storage (flywheels) and some other ideas as well (ultracapacitors, for instance).

bryanlarsen 5y ago

HVDC is crazy expensive. Solar and batteries are cheap. Local production and storage generally wins. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-electricity-is-local/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...