5 ms·

On a semi-serious note, you use surplus renewable energy to pump water up to a higher elevation and then use that when you need it. The energy storage capacity

by shagie 4y ago

On a semi-serious note, you use surplus renewable energy to pump water up to a higher elevation and then use that when you need it. The energy storage capacity of pumped hydro can be very impressive. > The upper reservoir (Llyn Stwlan) and dam of the Ffestiniog Pumped Storage Scheme in North Wales. The lower power station has four water turbines which generate 360 MW of electricity within 60 seconds of the need arising. https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

mcguire 4y ago
Also see the Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storag...): 1652 MW.
pydry 4y ago
Snowy 2 can store 350 GWh - slightly more than 2 weeks' worth of energy from an average nuclear power plant.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  That's fantastic news then. Wind + solar need about 2 days storage to be viable as the only power at > 90% So the $10bn on snowy plus $10bn AU of renewables can provide about the same contribution as 4GW or $40-60bn AU of nukes. You're really selling pumped hydro.
xyzzyz 4y ago
These pumped storage plants are great. However, just like standard hydroelectric plants, they do not scale easily. You cannot build them just about anywhere, you need rather specific conditions, like suitable topography or availability of water. These won’t suffice for our storage needs.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  This is often repeated, but is false each time.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    This is often repeated, because it is true. Just asserting it is false with no evidence is not very convincing. Let’s compare solar growth with pumped storage growth. In 2010, US had 0.9 GW of installed solar power generation capacity. In 2020, it has 19 GW of installed capacity. That’s 2100% growth. In the same time period, pumped storage has grown from 21.5 GW to 22.8 GW. That’s 6% growth. When should I expect to see significant growth of pumped hydro storage? I am willing to bet $500 that by 2030, pumped hydro generating capacity will not grow to more than 40 GW, while solar capacity will most definitely double by then. Will you take the other side of this bet?
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission. And that is, in fact, what is being done. The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.
        pencilguin 4y ago
        I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.
briffle 4y ago
Pumped Hydro is great, but there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement. They are trying to put two in Southern Oregon [0] [1]. They have been looking at it for decades, and still need many more years to look at environmental costs, diverting existing water (especially since that area has been in a large drought for the last few years, and farmers in that basin have had wells running dry), etc. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydropower-lake-county-oregon/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydrop... [1] https://slenergystorage.com/ https://slenergystorage.com/
- shagie 4y ago
  Tangent - a bit on the math behind Oregon's hydro power on the Columbia river: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=3632b147222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... I was hunting for the video of the "where water is being released to make sure that there is sufficient volume in the river for the hydro plant at the proper time to meet the expected demand" - https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ
- pencilguin 4y ago
  > "there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement" This is repeated often, but is wholly false, each time. Often it comes with a claim that an existing, elevated watershed is needed, which is false. A watershed is needed only for regular hydro generation. Most places suitable for that already have dams, many of which can be used for pumped hydro storage. Many are. But that is just a matter of convenience. The claim is often made hoping to confuse readers. Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. Some insist an expensive concrete dam is needed to provide enough "head" to store much energy. They either have not heard of a penstock, or pretend. An earthen dike suffices. "Head" is the height of the hill, not the depth of water behind the dike. Some insist a copious water supply is needed, which is false. Water may be stored at the bottom and pumped back up, with only evaporative losses. Such loss may be reduced by floating solar PV on the reservoir. Some places can use sea water. Some insist a mountain is required, where in fact a hill suffices. The greater the altitude, the more energy each ton of water stores, but a few hundred meters height is plenty. In places with underground cavities, even the hill is optional. Using an underground cavity for the lower reservoir can radically increase the head available, vs. just a hill. Few places are very far from any hill, or cannot afford evaporative loss from a reservoir. Such places will use other storage.

by shagie 4y ago

mcguire 4y ago

Also see the Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storag...): 1652 MW.

pydry 4y ago

Snowy 2 can store 350 GWh - slightly more than 2 weeks' worth of energy from an average nuclear power plant.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
That's fantastic news then. Wind + solar need about 2 days storage to be viable as the only power at > 90% So the $10bn on snowy plus $10bn AU of renewables can provide about the same contribution as 4GW or $40-60bn AU of nukes. You're really selling pumped hydro.

xyzzyz 4y ago

These pumped storage plants are great. However, just like standard hydroelectric plants, they do not scale easily. You cannot build them just about anywhere, you need rather specific conditions, like suitable topography or availability of water. These won’t suffice for our storage needs.

pencilguin 4y ago
This is often repeated, but is false each time.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  This is often repeated, because it is true. Just asserting it is false with no evidence is not very convincing. Let’s compare solar growth with pumped storage growth. In 2010, US had 0.9 GW of installed solar power generation capacity. In 2020, it has 19 GW of installed capacity. That’s 2100% growth. In the same time period, pumped storage has grown from 21.5 GW to 22.8 GW. That’s 6% growth. When should I expect to see significant growth of pumped hydro storage? I am willing to bet $500 that by 2030, pumped hydro generating capacity will not grow to more than 40 GW, while solar capacity will most definitely double by then. Will you take the other side of this bet?
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission. And that is, in fact, what is being done. The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.
      - pencilguin 4y ago
        I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.

briffle 4y ago

Pumped Hydro is great, but there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement. They are trying to put two in Southern Oregon [0] [1]. They have been looking at it for decades, and still need many more years to look at environmental costs, diverting existing water (especially since that area has been in a large drought for the last few years, and farmers in that basin have had wells running dry), etc. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydropower-lake-county-oregon/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydrop... [1] https://slenergystorage.com/ https://slenergystorage.com/

shagie 4y ago
Tangent - a bit on the math behind Oregon's hydro power on the Columbia river: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=3632b147222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... I was hunting for the video of the "where water is being released to make sure that there is sufficient volume in the river for the hydro plant at the proper time to meet the expected demand" - https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ
pencilguin 4y ago
> "there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement" This is repeated often, but is wholly false, each time. Often it comes with a claim that an existing, elevated watershed is needed, which is false. A watershed is needed only for regular hydro generation. Most places suitable for that already have dams, many of which can be used for pumped hydro storage. Many are. But that is just a matter of convenience. The claim is often made hoping to confuse readers. Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. Some insist an expensive concrete dam is needed to provide enough "head" to store much energy. They either have not heard of a penstock, or pretend. An earthen dike suffices. "Head" is the height of the hill, not the depth of water behind the dike. Some insist a copious water supply is needed, which is false. Water may be stored at the bottom and pumped back up, with only evaporative losses. Such loss may be reduced by floating solar PV on the reservoir. Some places can use sea water. Some insist a mountain is required, where in fact a hill suffices. The greater the altitude, the more energy each ton of water stores, but a few hundred meters height is plenty. In places with underground cavities, even the hill is optional. Using an underground cavity for the lower reservoir can radically increase the head available, vs. just a hill. Few places are very far from any hill, or cannot afford evaporative loss from a reservoir. Such places will use other storage.