4 ms·

> Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible The Australian National University recently disagreed: https://www.anu.edu.au/news/al

by jhgb 4y ago

> Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible The Australian National University recently disagreed: https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potent... . But even very large amounts of pumped hydro storage are probably not the cost optimum -- according to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211... , the optimum lies in the direction of significant overgeneration, which reduces storage requirements massively (even while allowing opportunistic consumers of electricity such as for example hydrogen production). > But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter. So the more likely periods of decreased wind happen in summer, where they're interrupted daily by significant solar generation. At the very least in German conditions, these two events (lack of wind and lack of sun) are not only not independent, but they're actually anticorrelated. That also helps deal with the whole situation.

himinlomax 4y ago
> The Australian National University recently disagreed This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. > Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. Famine, drowning and thirst also occur when a commodity that's otherwise readily available on average isn't. They're considered somewhat unpleasant.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Of course we're not going to bet anything. Everyone here wants to construct a resilient and efficient energy production system. That this is unachievable with a high percentage of wind power in the mix is not obvious.
- jhgb 4y ago
  > This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Northern Europe generally doesn't need the kind of sites that this study was looking for (a pair of locations vertically separated and horizontally close with a river close to the lower location); they already have "once-through" hydro plants on rivers with reservoirs high in the mountains. > Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. I don't have to "bet my freezing bottom" on it. The "less likely" part means lower expected value of energy needs not satisfied by a combination of solar and wind power. This lower expected value translates into lower expenditure of backup supplies such as synthetic gas being expended for that purpose, and therefore the lower average annual cost of using such supplies. That makes this approach viable.

by jhgb 4y ago

himinlomax 4y ago

> The Australian National University recently disagreed This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. > Interestingly enough for Germany, the period less likely to suffer from prolonged lack of wind is winter Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. Famine, drowning and thirst also occur when a commodity that's otherwise readily available on average isn't. They're considered somewhat unpleasant.

geysersam 4y ago
Of course we're not going to bet anything. Everyone here wants to construct a resilient and efficient energy production system. That this is unachievable with a high percentage of wind power in the mix is not obvious.
jhgb 4y ago
> This is a worldwide assessment. Look at Northern Europe, and notice the complete lack of dots on the map. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Northern Europe generally doesn't need the kind of sites that this study was looking for (a pair of locations vertically separated and horizontally close with a river close to the lower location); they already have "once-through" hydro plants on rivers with reservoirs high in the mountains. > Want you bet your freezing bottom on it? "Less likely" does not cut it for a vital commodity. I don't have to "bet my freezing bottom" on it. The "less likely" part means lower expected value of energy needs not satisfied by a combination of solar and wind power. This lower expected value translates into lower expenditure of backup supplies such as synthetic gas being expended for that purpose, and therefore the lower average annual cost of using such supplies. That makes this approach viable.